Getting my ducks in a row

Last night I was going through some of my posts from the last month or so. Trying in a sense to collate, or just re-familiarise myself with some of the anti-lockdown arguments I've been making. Getting my ducks in a row so to speak.

I think it's important to get on the front foot with these things, and to be able to state and espouse your core values. I see more and more people coming out against lock down - which is great. However, they always tend to be on the back foot, which is understandable given the situation. Trying to justify why lock down isn't needed rather than trying to make their opponents justify why it is.

The classic one is getting locked into arguments about the data (I've found myself in this situation too). You say "but the death rate of this virus is just 0.3%, we don't need lock down measures." Which is good, but it also implies that there is a percentage rate at which these measures become necessary. So if the data changes (can much of it even be trusted?) you then look like you're backtracking. You put your eggs in the "low percentage" basket, now that percentage is moving higher you're going to look like you're moving the goalposts if you then refuse to concede that lock down is justified.

So I've been trying to hone core arguments. I've been calling it "the small pox test", i.e. could I make this argument in a small pox outbreak. Of course, I'm using small pox simply because it has a high death rate, I've no real idea how that disease spreads. So it might not be the perfect choice. You get the meaning though. Could I make this argument in the face of scary data?

Locking down entire countries and regions is so clumsy and soviet. Especially when you're locking down healthy people and sacrificing so many other things - including lives lost due to other things. So I always like to ask the people advocating draconian measures;

"Is this really the most intelligent solution you can come up with?"

Put the onus on them.