For one thing, drug abuse is not communicable. For another, COVID is indeed significantly more deadly than drug overdoses.

But the actual answer is that the UE has spent far more money and resources into fighting drugs than it has COVID. The majority of police resources goes towards fighting drugs. The majority of prison resources goes towards fighting drugs. Unlike COVID, where at most people have been sternly asked to quarantine, hundreds of thousands of people are locked up and have almost all their freedoms taken away for drugs. There is an entire massive federal agency that only exists to deal with drugs, and has counterparts in nearly every state.

The problem is not a lack of resources vs say COVID. We have been putting orders of magnitudes more resources towards drugs in the US for decades than we have in this one year for COVID.

The problem is that a very large majority of society is unwilling to treat drugs as the health problem that they are and want to test it as a criminal issue. We are now seeing some movement towards treating it as a health issue, now that white families are affected the same way as black families have been for decades, but the change is still far too slow and is largely unofficial.

So the question that we should be asking is not why we are not putting in more resources towards drugs as COVID (simply because we are). The question is why we aren’t putting the bulk of the massive resources we spend on drugs towards the health aspects as opposed to trying to criminalize it out of society.

Okay, I guess we could start sending SWAT teams to throw quarantine violators in prison; that does seem like an apt analogy for the war on drugs.

But I should have said "treating" instead of "fighting". Hurting someone in retaliation for doing something should never be seen as a viable treatment option; that's just punishment for the sake of punishment.

I wish that Americans didn't enjoy hurting other people so much. It makes it hard and even a little bit traumatizing to live here on a day-to-day and year-to-year basis.

It's depressingly hard to get politicians to invest in solving problems that can be waved away as moral failure on the part of the victims.

Yep. Most people do not know the primary cause of drug abuse is AvPD, which, like covid, is not within the control of the drug abuser. In theory a therapist and support group can help, but unlike going to the hospital, one has to choose to grow and improve to get help from a therapist.

One of the symptoms of AvPD is the avoidance of this kind of growth, making it an unfortunate and challenging problem. Going to a therapist isn't enough. There needs to be a cultural change, so that we all know (including those suffering) that there is a way out.

Is there really a solution to the problem? SF has lots of programs for those who want help, many don't.

There is litigation that might reduce the problem at the source: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/10/15/7615373...

Agreed on the need to treat those already addicted.

You can't draw attention to it. That might raise even more questions about the net effectiveness of continued lockdowns.

> It makes me wonder why we haven't been spending anything close to 1/5 as much time and effort on fighting opioid abuse as we have on covid.

If you think opioid abuse is bad, wait until you know the amount of deaths from obesity or smoking.

> More than 480,000 deaths annually (including deaths from secondhand smoke)

https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/heal...

> Obesity is associated with nearly 1 in 5 US deaths, according to a study published online August 15 in the American Journal of Public Health. The new data suggest obesity's toll on Americans is more than 3 times previous estimates.

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/809516

All preventable causes of death that apparently we must be ok with!

What's the lockdown equivalent?

Is it "not caring" if I don't lock anyone above 200lbs in a room and starve them until they're a healthy weight?

The health care system is built with capacity to handle obesity and smoking related illnesses. It is not built with the capacity to handle covid on top of that.

Additionally, a pandemic and the measures to stop it is a temporary situation. If we could end obesity, opiod abuse, or car crashes by making drastic societal changes that only lasted for a couple months, I'd argue that we should do that. The equivalent actions to stop other high-mortality trends would be permanent changes to society.

We had a year now to beef up our health care system. I guess it’s just easier to take away human rights?

Wait, are you suggesting that more infection of a novel virus (whose family is known for more fatality and lingering effects) is an acceptable trade-off for temporary freedom from masks and limits on gathering?

Assuming that ones hostipals could handle the worst case scenarios.

There are people for whom liberty is an absolute and there is litterally nothing that justifies curtailing it. For a sizable population the entire moral supremacy of the United States is that it is a place that they feel uniquely safeguards it.

I have no dog in this fight as I don’t live there, but I see it as a theme in enough comments and threads that I’m surprised some Americans seem so oblivious to the perspective of their fellow countrymen.

> it is a place that they feel uniquely safeguards it

This isn't news, just read de Tocqueville.

As an American I'm comforted by the idea that a significant part of my compatriots will resist any order by virtue of being ordered.

Treat other people like humans with dignity that must be persuaded instead of commanded. That's the American ideal imo.

That's not the way America treats other people around the world.

Hence why they're referred to as ideals.

No one lives up to them as a consequence of being human.

That doesn't invalidate them.

> the measures to stop it is a temporary situation

Lockdown advocates are arguing authoritarianism is how we get zero deaths.

I don’t care to entertain authoritarianism on a “temporary basis.”

The thing is, authoritarianism justifies itself with tons of utopian excuses like:

Zero crime

Zero poverty

Zero hunger

Zero obesity

Zero sin

It is wrong to pretend that lockdown isn't effective. No man is an island with respect to communicable diseases.

Instead, we decided that this health issue is an ideological struggle of authoritarianism versus liberty, or democrats versus conservative, instead of working together to solve this problem so that we can return to normalcy ASAP.

It's pretty embarrassing that China had got the disease beaten, while we're still struggling with COVID-19.

> It is wrong to pretend that lockdown isn't effective.

If they were effective, why do graphs show seasonality predominates?

There's yet to be conclusive scientific evidence of the effectiveness of lockdowns.

No where in the 2006 Bush plan does it even mention something akin to lockdown - there's mention of quarantine and isolation under police power but that's about it.

Surely the medical community and govt would have written about something like that beforehand?

> It's pretty embarrassing that China had got the disease beaten, while we're still struggling with COVID-19.

Why are they spending billions as part of their campaign to control narratives through means of propaganda, etc.?

> If they were effective, why do graphs show seasonality predominates?

That doesn't follow. Growth prior to the initial lockdowns was expoenential with a doubling rate between 5-7 days. Had this been ineffective we'd have all been sick by now and maybe 50-100M people would be dead worldwide.

Clearly "lockdown" (which is a loaded term people tend to use for anything from stay at home orders to simple mask requirements) worked. The question is how well and to what extent the regimes were followed, and by which populations.

> Growth prior to the initial lockdowns was expoenential with a doubling rate between 5-7 days. Had this been ineffective we'd have all been sick by now and maybe 50-100M people would be dead worldwide.

You know this isn't true because practically every local area that suffers an outbreak follows the same curve regardless of how they implement a strategy.

It looks different at larger levels (town, city, state, country, globe) because it's the aggregation of multiple outbreaks.

> You know this isn't true because practically every local area that suffers an outbreak follows the same curve regardless of how they implement a strategy.

That's just laughably wrong. Explain how these are the "same curve"?

https://91-divoc.com/pages/covid-visualization/?chart=countr...

Did you even read what I said? I said local outbreaks all follow the same spread curve.

When aggregated at the country level you're looking at many separate outbreaks superimposed, hence the wide curves.

And that too seems trivially falsifiable. You have something to cite?

It also ignores actual lockdown which brought cases down to 0 in Victoria. Holding up for a month or so already.