Where did you get the information about it being more challenging for an antibody response? That's not in the article.

Quote:

---

Instead of waiting for evidence, it is better to act quickly," said Tyra Grove Krause, head department at Statens Serum Institut, a government agency that maps the spread of the coronavirus in Denmark.

---

So locking down an entire population and having zero evidence of it being harmful to humans?

It's not good. This is a NOVEL coronavirus (that word in caps seems to not register with deniers), and we still, while having more information about it now then we did in March, still know so little about it.

P.U.T.U said:

---

Quote:

---

Instead of waiting for evidence, it is better to act quickly," said Tyra Grove Krause, head department at Statens Serum Institut, a government agency that maps the spread of the coronavirus in Denmark.

---

So locking down an entire population and having zero evidence of it being harmful to humans?

---

When have we ever seen a government willingly give up power. People didn't push back the first time so why stop there? We have demonstrated a scary ability to give up freedom under the guise of safety.

coolerguy12 said:

---

P.U.T.U said:

---

Quote:

---

Instead of waiting for evidence, it is better to act quickly," said Tyra Grove Krause, head department at Statens Serum Institut, a government agency that maps the spread of the coronavirus in Denmark.

---

So locking down an entire population and having zero evidence of it being harmful to humans?

---

When have we ever seen a government willingly give up power. People didn't push back the first time so why stop there? We have demonstrated a scary ability to give up freedom under the guise of safety.

---

This has become such a cliche line.

The government grounded flights after 9/11. Fairly certain we've had commercial airline travel since then.

Yes, you don't want to have an over-reaching government - but this idea that every decision made under the label of "for the public good" is actually a nefarious plot to control us all is fairy tale land.

Proposition Joe said:

---

coolerguy12 said:

---

P.U.T.U said:

---

Quote:

---

Instead of waiting for evidence, it is better to act quickly," said Tyra Grove Krause, head department at Statens Serum Institut, a government agency that maps the spread of the coronavirus in Denmark.

---

So locking down an entire population and having zero evidence of it being harmful to humans?

---

When have we ever seen a government willingly give up power. People didn't push back the first time so why stop there? We have demonstrated a scary ability to give up freedom under the guise of safety.

---

This has become such a cliche line.

The government grounded flights after 9/11. Fairly certain we've had commercial airline travel since then.

Yes, you don't want to have an over-reaching government - but this idea that every decision made under the label of "for the public good" is actually a nefarious plot to control us all is fairy tale land.

---

Patriot Act and both wars in Iraq and Afghanistan say differently.

Never let a good crisis go to waste.

DOnt forget the TSA which has become a permanent fixture since 9/11

Proposition Joe said:

---

Except neither the Patriot Act or the Afganistan War were significant detriments to the country's economy the latter probably improved it.

Locking the population down and forcing businesses to close for "control" makes zero sense and is tinfoil hat talk.

---

Wait, I know how to do this:


Tell that to the parents of kids who died in the war!!!!

Proposition Joe said:

---

BiochemAg97 said:

---

Proposition Joe said:

---

coolerguy12 said:

---

P.U.T.U said:

---

Quote:

---

Instead of waiting for evidence, it is better to act quickly," said Tyra Grove Krause, head department at Statens Serum Institut, a government agency that maps the spread of the coronavirus in Denmark.

---

So locking down an entire population and having zero evidence of it being harmful to humans?

---

When have we ever seen a government willingly give up power. People didn't push back the first time so why stop there? We have demonstrated a scary ability to give up freedom under the guise of safety.

---

This has become such a cliche line.

The government grounded flights after 9/11. Fairly certain we've had commercial airline travel since then.

Yes, you don't want to have an over-reaching government - but this idea that every decision made under the label of "for the public good" is actually a nefarious plot to control us all is fairy tale land.

---

That is really a foolish defense. The government didn't give up power by letting flights resume, they grabbed more.

---

Except I'm not arguing that the government never grabs power, I'm just not being hyperbolic about it. Every government-decision made for the public good doesn't 100% (or even the majority of the time) translate into a permanent restriction.

This idea that we're going to lockdown people forever because "government power grab!" isn't grounded in any kind of reality.

---

Obviously, they aren't locking down forever. Otherwise, they wouldn't have opened up in order to lock down again. However, it is apparent from the speed at which Denmark, the UK, and other governments world wide have returned to lockdowns after reopening that the threshold necessary for a lockdown is lower than the first time, even in the face of many more scientists and scientific/health organizations saying the lockdowns are doing more harm than good.

Your mistake is assuming government power means they always exercise it (lockdown forever). They don't. Governments have the taxing power to take what you make. They generally don't take everything (at least not for very long). They have the power to incarcerate people, but they don't incarcerate everyone forever.

Due to COVID, the governments have learned they can lock down anything/everything with sufficient fear/justification. And as long as the populous accepts it and doesn't push back, the barrier will continue to get lower.

The thing about the "public good" and "doing the right thing", everyone believes what they are doing is for those reasons. Just because those in power think they are doing something for the public good, doesn't mean it will actually benefit society or be in the best interest of the public. It is also way to easy to go from there to "ends justifies the means". History is littered with examples of leaders who thought they were doing things for the public good when it was anything but.

Parkinson's law explains this quite well.

Government control only grows in one direction.

The original intent (good or bad) is pointless.

Proposition Joe said:

---

Quote:

---

The thing about the "public good" and "doing the right thing", everyone believes what they are doing is for those reasons. Just because those in power think they are doing something for the public good, doesn't mean it will actually benefit society or be in the best interest of the public.

---

And as the intent of my original post, the counter is also true - not every government decision "for the public good" will result in a wholesale power grab that is a gross detriment to society.

I'm not saying that the government wielding lockdown power is a good thing, but I'm also not being hyperbolic that any government restriction is the precursor to a full-blown power grab.

---

The frustrating thing for me is people scream "listen to the science" but at the first sign of a mutation that might not be a good one we have a government going into lockdown, which flies in the face of the WHO who has recommended against full lockdowns now as they believe they do more harm than good. The same WHO people were saying we should be listening to in Mar/Apr.

As biochem said, other countries are returning to lockdowns with a lower threshold.

Apparently we only listen to science when it fits what we want to do.