Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

I've read the whole thing and I have these comments:

- I think the part about the freedoms is unnecessary because I feel the vast majority of the pro-lockdown people do not share your enthusiasm for freedom and public discourse. While your main argument may shift their opinion, the part about liberty may cause them to stop reading and discard your other arguments.

- I think some claims would sound more persuasive if there were more links to research. For example, the claim about 0.1-0.7% mortality. There's a study about China (0.66% mortality) and a bunch of others that could support your point. You could also add mortality stats for influenza in the US from the CDC website (I think it's 0.13% on average).

- The TLDR sounds bitter and childish, in my opinion.

Overall a great summary and I'll share that with others.



view as:

I laughed at this:

> Other countries do not even have the concept of freedom of speech/assembly embedded into their founding documents.

as it was clear that the author hadn't done any research on this - many countries explicitly or implictly have these in their founding documents.


Yes, the statement as I wrote it was imprecise enough to be false. I am going to circle back and fix it.

In short, the important distinction is not that it's embedded into the founding documents, but that we do not place the limitations on free speech that other countries do.

i.e. places like UK, germany, france - while they may have the phrase "free speech" in their documents, the limitations put on it are extreme enough that they're basically referring to a totally different concept.

So, it would be more accurate to say that other countries do not share our concept of free speech, in that ours has _very_ few limits put on it.



Legal | privacy