The difference is one of estimations of the competences of governments vs. individuals, and to whom the benefit of the doubt goes to.
Hawks presuppose governments because they are the governments. Thus they are forced to belittle people and sceptics, and this becomes the debate.
There was a brief moment, back last March, where it looked like the PP would be abandoned, and that government competence would not be taken for granted. Instead, the government were bounced into promising "three weeks to flatten the curve". Here we are, ten months later.
The PP is ideological: it wants to create a cowed, supplicant, obedient population as much as it wants to protect it from 'risks'. But it is hostile to each and every attempt to enumerate and quantify risks rationally. It puts wild speculation before evidence.
Ten deaths saved through the application of the PP therefore weigh more than a hundred deaths that it causes.
This is because the PP is literally cost-benefit analysis or risk analysis without numbers, which always favours the hawk.
There is no application of the PP which does not favour the power and authority of the policymaker, to credit the individual with the competence to make decisions, and to manage his or her own risks. It never happens.
All that is necessary to demonstrate the dangerous folly of allowing people to manage their own lives is a chart produced by a researcher at a London college.
The chart will be evidence until the prognostication fails. But it then does not count as evidence of failure.
Every death that occurs is only evidence of insufficient precaution: should have locked down harder, sooner, longer, further. It cannot be allowed as evidence that the presuppositions of government competence and the PP's soundness were wrong. That's how ideologies work.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
It is not just closing someone's Twitter account. It is closing down democratically-appointed people's accounts, while seeking to impeach & prosecute them, depriving them of a platform from which to defend themselves, and moving to outlaw their broader movements. It *is* fascism.
You may want to split hairs about precise definitions, and of historical parallels and the pitfalls of drawing them. But fascism was never so clearly defined by its theoreticians, or since, by historians.
They will use the law, violence, and war to further their interests, against their opponents, against democracy and against their populations.
That makes the case, as far as I am concerned, and the rest is for the birds, so to speak.
"... British conservatives are still in power and still getting away with it. They will only change, if they ever change, when they receive their overdue punishment."
Do not underestimate anti-Trump hysteria. They have tasted blood. And they're not full.