SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Gun-carrying protesters have been a common sight at some demonstrations calling for coronavirus-related restrictions to be lifted. But an armed militia’s involvement in an angry protest in the Michigan statehouse Thursday marked an escalation that drew condemnation and shone a spotlight on the practice of bringing weapons to protest.
The “American Patriot Rally” started on the statehouse steps, where members of the Michigan Liberty Militia stood guard with weapons and tactical gear, their faces partially covered. They later moved inside the Capitol along with several hundred protesters, who demanded to be let onto the House floor, which is prohibited. Some protesters with guns — which are allowed in the statehouse — went to the Senate gallery, where a senator said some armed men shouted at her, and some senators wore bulletproof vests.
For some observers, the images of armed men in tactical gear at a state Capitol were an unsettling symbol of rising tensions in a nation grappling with crisis. Others saw evidence of racial bias in the way the protesters were treated by police.
For some politicians, there was fresh evidence of the risk of aligning with a movement with clear ties to far-right groups.
Prominent Michigan Republicans on Friday criticized the showing, with the GOP leader of the state Senate referring to some protesters as “a bunch of jackasses” who “used intimidation and the threat of physical harm to stir up fear and feed rancor.”
President Donald Trump, who has been criticized in the past for condoning extremist views, called the protesters “very good people” and urged Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer to “make a deal.”
Michiganhas been the epicenter of the political showdownover how to contain the spread of the deadly virus without decimating the economy. About a quarter of the state’s workforce has filed for unemployment and nearly 4,000 people have died.
for the rest of the story click spoiler or click the link
Rally organizer Ryan Kelley said the event was intended to pressure Republicans to reject Whitmer’s plan to continue restrictions on work and travel. He called the protest a “huge win,” noting the Republican-controlled Senate refused to extend Whitmer’s coronavirus emergency declaration — though she said Friday her stay-at-home order remains in effect.Kelley, a 38-year-old real estate broker, said he and other organizers are not part of a formal group but represent people who have been harmed by the stay-home order. He said he invited the Michigan Liberty Militia, which is listed as an anti-government group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, to serve as “security.” He suggested anyone who had a problem with their presence should read the Constitution and “live life without fear.”
Gun-carrying protesters outside state capitols are a regular occurrence in many states, especially in Republican-leaning ones. But rarely do such protests converge at the same time around the country like they have during the coronavirus pandemic.
In Wisconsin, about a dozen men, several wearing camouflage, carried what appeared to be assault rifles and other long guns and stood around a makeshift guillotine at a protest attended by about 1,500 people. In Arizona, a group of men armed with rifles were among hundreds of protesters who demonstrated at the Capitol last month demanding Republican Gov. Doug Ducey lift his stay-home order. Many in the crowd also carried holstered pistols.
Gun groups have been involved in organizing several of these protests — which drew activists from a range of conservative causes. Gun rights advocates believe the restrictions on some businesses and closure of government offices are a threat to their right to own a gun, said Michael Hammond, legislative counsel for Gun Owners of America, a group that bills itself as the “no compromise” gun lobby.
Hammond said he routinely gets messages and emails from people around the country, complaining that authorities are making it impossible to exercise their Second Amendment rights. In some cases, that has meant orders closing gun shops or gun ranges or offices shutting down that process permits.
But Shannon Watts, the founder of Moms Demand Action, a gun-control group, considers these protests organized by the ultra-right and not necessarily reflective of most gun owners.
While it’s legal to openly carry firearms inside some state capitols, Watts called it “dangerous to normalize this. Armed intimidation has no place in our political debate.” She said those carrying guns at protests are almost always white men, and are “a vocal minority of the country” that opposes the stay-at-home orders.
An overwhelming majority of Americans support stay-at-home orders and other efforts to slow the spread of the virus, according to a recent survey from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.
The visual of heavily armed protesters, mostly white men, occupying a government building to a measured response by law enforcement is a particularly jarring one for many African Americans.
It draws a stark contrast to the images that emerged from Ferguson, Missouri, in 2014, when crowds of unarmed, mostly black men, women and children took to the streets in protest after a white police officer shot and killed an unarmed black teenager named Michael Brown. Police shot tear gas to disperse the crowds, further inflaming the tensions between predominantly black community and law enforcement. It worsened when members of an armed militia group called the Oath Keepers arrived, some of them armed and sitting on rooftops. Jon Belmar, who was then St. Louis County’s police chief, said at the time that the presence of the group, whose members wore camouflage, bulletproof vests and openly carried rifles and pistols, was “unnecessary and inflammatory.”
“Systemically, blackness is treated like a more dangerous weapon than a white man’s gun ever will, while whiteness is the greatest shield of safety,” said Brittany Packnett, a prominent national activist who protested in Ferguson.
The Michigan demonstrators, she added, “are what happens when people of racial privilege confuse oppression with inconvenience. No one is treading on their rights. We’re all just trying to live.”
Trump, meanwhile, suggested it was Whitmer who should be moved to action.
“The Governor of Michigan should give a little, and put out the fire,” the president tweeted Friday. “These are very good people, but they are angry. They want their lives back again, safely! See them, talk to them, make a deal.”
It's an AP story, several sites are carrying it, I chose to use https://www.bigcountryhomepage.com/news/us-politics/michigan-militia-puts-armed-protest-in-the-spotlight/
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday May 03 2020, @08:43AM (10 children)
Not one shot fired, not one death, not one injury, not one arrest, not one single arson fire, no shattered store fronts in Michigan.
In Ferguson? A city in ruins.
We need MOAR ARMED PROTESTS!!!
Hail to the Nibbler in Chief.
(Score: 0, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2020, @10:31AM (7 children)
Kill the Runaway! Shoot down the Runaway like a rabid dog! Fuck the Runaway up his coacal canal with metal in solid solution! We will execute you RunawaY!! Thank God Arkansas still has the death penalty for Treason. You will die, Runaway. Did you notice us following you today? No? Well, of course not, we are professionals, after all.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2020, @10:53AM (6 children)
Rabid Aristarchus Coward could become violent if the election doesn't go his way. Put the dog killers on speed dial just in case.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2020, @01:57PM (2 children)
speed dial updated
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2020, @10:22PM (1 child)
Runaway Mad Dog Department? We gots a live one!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2020, @06:38AM
I say, we awaken TMB from his dogmatic slumbers, in the Ready Reserve, give him an M60 SAW, and let him go to town on these traitorous scum. They really just need to be mowed down. Spreading virus? That is an action of a military force of another nation, threatening Americans! Send out the TMBs! And other unthinking Members of the Guard, who really wish they could be on the other, more racist, side, but really, really, need that National Guard check, every month. So they will obey orders. And the Michigan Militia is toast, once again. Never were too smart to begin with. This, again, is why we cannot have white supremacy, white folks just be too dumb. Fall for anything, Miracle Mineral Solutions, Hydroxychloroquinine, Dorr Bros. scams. To stupid to live, so do them a favor. Coup d'grace, mon freres!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2020, @02:57PM (2 children)
How's that any different from the Michigan Militia?
Have you ever listened to Liberty Tree Radio [4mg.com] or Mark from Michigan [theintelligencereport.tk] (won't load for me on either TOR or clearnet)?
Many of these protestors likely do. I used to listen to Mark from Michigan with Da. Many of these protestors been salivating over the possibility of Kristallnacht for quite a while, since the 90s at least.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2020, @03:29AM (1 child)
"Many of these protestors been salivating over the possibility of Kristallnacht for quite a while, since the 90s at least."
Indeed. My impression of them is these are just Michigan's Neonazis marching under a new banner.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2020, @06:44AM
I hate Illinois Nazis [youtube.com], but am willing to make a stretch for Michigan Nazis. Hit it!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2020, @02:26PM (1 child)
Yes indeed we need moar armed protests. I recognized one of the dudes. Batshit crazy. Thinks that Caucasian Christians are the real Jews and people who actually practice Judaism aren't Jews at all! How to convince lefties that guns aren't the problem but that counterrevolutionaries with guns--and every one of those guys likely has 5 or 10 more rifles and a few pistols safely and properly stored at home--mean we need revolutionaries with guns.
If the Redcoats were the only ones armed in 1775? I do not think that Lexington and Concord would have ended well, not for the colonial revolutionaries anyway. Because the original minute men were armed, we were able to enter the capitalist era, the first step towards the elimination of the state. It is time for the next step towards the elimination of the state.
Here's that part of Trotsky's Transitional Program [marxists.org] I like to post:
We see this all over again with the Bernie Bros and DNC, always gotta grab the guns while the state is armed to the teeth. And of course, those protestors in Lansing are not revolutionaries, but they are acting as an auxiliary to the Republican Party, some kind of detachment of political incels. The dynamic between these protestors and the RNC is quite a bit different from left-wing protestors and the DNC.
But that is because left-wing protestors are still in the process of learning that the DNC is not their friend. Left-wing protestors don't get to have bourgeois friends like these protestors do.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2020, @12:17AM
You are not, apparently, aware that most of the weapons used by the Revolutionaries at Lexington and Concord were liberated from British armories around Massachussetts [wikipedia.org]. In fact, the removal of those weapons was an important impetus for the British to go after the Revolutionaries at Lexington and Concord.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Mojibake Tengu on Sunday May 03 2020, @09:43AM (12 children)
Ah, even revolutions are secret these days.
Is this movement actually controlled by some federal service?
Or, maybe, just some cowards...
The edge of 太玄 cannot be defined, for it is beyond every aspect of design
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by Runaway1956 on Sunday May 03 2020, @10:39AM (10 children)
Sorry, man - but you can read the entire article above, in the "spoiler" section. I just didn't want people to scroll for twenty minutes before reaching the comments section. ;^)
Hail to the Nibbler in Chief.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Mojibake Tengu on Sunday May 03 2020, @11:20AM (8 children)
That's not the technicality what I am concerned about. I suspect those people behind the pretending Texas server have very something to hide. It smells at distance like a gov operation. A model trap provocation disguised as anti-gov.
The edge of 太玄 cannot be defined, for it is beyond every aspect of design
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday May 03 2020, @12:16PM
(Score: 2) by Arik on Sunday May 03 2020, @12:35PM (6 children)
Seems more like a way of avoiding liability than actually keeping anyone out. If you really want to get to the site use a US proxy.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday May 03 2020, @01:55PM (1 child)
I disagree. Just stop collecting any data on your visitors, and you've pretty much met all GDPR requirements. No cookies, no logs, no sharing, no third party deal, no trackers - just put your page up for people to see. The GDPR is all about data collection and retention - so don't collect, and don't retain.
The rules change if/when someone actually registers on your site. Obviously, the registrant wants you to retain some data, so things can start to get complicated.
Hail to the Nibbler in Chief.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Sunday May 03 2020, @04:42PM
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Mojibake Tengu on Sunday May 03 2020, @02:11PM (3 children)
Your explanation enforces my suspicion.
Government is, by its definition, a guarantee of a legal system. A true anti-gov movement is, by its definition, based on assumption some legal concepts of their government are illegitimate, and therefore it is legitimate to ignore or infringe such legal concepts.
An anti-gov movement respecting dubious legal concepts of some other government than their own, for formally legal reasons completely irrelevant to their own agenda is either a joke, either a method of veiling an agency operation from public media, or a typical internal bureaucratic oversight of an agency.
In all cases, it is dumb as it stands.
I don't believe this so-called anti-gov movement represents true will of the people.
The edge of 太玄 cannot be defined, for it is beyond every aspect of design
(Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Sunday May 03 2020, @02:38PM (1 child)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2020, @04:55PM
http://libertytreeradio.4mg.com/ [4mg.com]
https://www.gcnlive.com/JW1D/index.php#topADspace [gcnlive.com]
(Score: 2) by Arik on Sunday May 03 2020, @04:41PM
What's that got to do with anything here?
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2020, @06:17PM
By why would any sane, educated person want to read the rantings of a bunch of insane gun-nuts? Dorr Bros, Bundy Bros, Mercer & Daughter, Amway and Paypal mafia types, a whole stable of horseshit loosers. And Runaway. My Gawd you are stupid, Runaway! Gullible and Stupid, but mostly just stupid.
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday May 03 2020, @08:16PM
Whenever you see a chicken-shouldered, stoic rodent-faced guy with a runner physique wearing Oakley shades and waving around a Nazi or Confederate Navy flag telling everybody to "Avenge Ruby Ridge" and "Make bacon out of these pigs;" chances are you've spotted the fed. Congrats!
(Score: 2) by Arik on Sunday May 03 2020, @12:30PM (1 child)
When you year that phrase, it's a certain clue that the speaker doesn't know anything about firearms.
But the insane emotional response to open carry is an even bigger red flag. There's nothing more American than open carry, yet it's clearly causing culture shock among members of a certain class. The logical conclusion is that these people are not actually Americans, culturally.
But if they aren't American, what are they?
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2020, @06:54AM
Arik, just saying something so stupid means you know nothing about firearms. Perhaps you were thinking of "Automatic", versus "Crowd-sourced" firearms? Or matchlocks as opposed to wheel-locks? Maybe Pneumatic versus linear-induction-accelerated range weapons? I think you are quite ignorant of that of which you speak, but this is not unusual in the Right to Arm Bears crowd, who tend to have deficits in cognitive function and mechanical design. Thus they fall Prey to manufacturers who label their little .22 caliber plinkers as Weapons of Manly Men, Assault Rifles, of Sexual Assault on Other Men, because war, after all, is Homosexual Rape, inserting objects into other men's bodies, without their permission. Faggots all, with you non-assault rifles! Now go fuck a chicken, Arik. But for God's sake, let it live!
(Score: 2) by shortscreen on Sunday May 03 2020, @01:21PM (1 child)
TFA brings up police use of tear gas against black protesters in another state for just long enough to try and pin the systemic racism on display there on the current protesters who aren't being hit with tear gas. Neat trick, eh? As if the solution to one person's rights being violated is for someone else whose rights have not (yet?) been similarly violated to feel bad about it, and presumably to shutup and stop trying to exercise those rights.
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2020, @04:29PM
Meh, this is as usual much more about behavior than color. The Ferguson "protests" rapidly descended into chaos, BEFORE the police cracked down, with large numbers of folks simply using it as an excuse to somewhat indiscriminately rob, loot, and attack others. The riots started on August 10th. Riot police showed up on August 11th, and came down hard. By contrast this protest, genuine protest, was over what many view as the government unconstitutionally destroying people's livelihoods on a massive scale. And it wasn't used as an excuse to engage in unlawful behavior. It was little more than a demonstration of force and stating that such behavior would not continue to be accepted.
The reason I put protest in quotes in Ferguson is not only because it was more like a riot than a protest, but also because of motivation. Ferguson was caused by the shooting of Michael Brown. There is video of Brown robbing a store to start his day. When an officer pulled him over witnesses described Brown reaching into the vehicle, assaulting the police officer, and then grabbing at his gun. After a foot chase, the 6'4" 300lb Brown decided to try to charge the officer who then shot and killed him. I think nobody, just considering the facts would consider this unjust. So you have "protests" over what? They were probably driven largely by pent up anger, frustration, and probably a good deal of racism as well.
To put things another way, I think regardless of the color of the folks involved - you'd probably see the exact same outcome in both cases.
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday May 03 2020, @09:24PM
Well, at least we all know who Biden's running mate will be.
Oprah was sexually assaulted, way worse than Whitmer, but that didn't stop Oprah from becoming Harvey Weinstein's child-trafficking madam now, did it?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2020, @12:07AM (8 children)
That's the message of these "protestors."
There is a genuine public health emergency in progress. Should state governments cave to such an implied threat of violence?
One might argue that it is an American's right to carry their weapons, and that tends to be true. In fact, in the places where such folks are bringing such weapons, open carry is legal and exactly zero guns were confiscated and exactly zero arrests were made for carrying such weapons.
That said, unless you're *ready and willing* to shoot people, whether they be legislators, police or others, what's the point of *brandishing* weapons at statehouses?
The message is clear: Do what we want or we will shoot people. That's the very clear implied threat, given that there are no ducks or deer or other wildlife to hunt, or (other) dangerous lunatics/criminals just waiting to shoot such "protestors."
What is a firearm? It is a tool. A tool which can (legitimately) be used for defence or hunting. It can also be used as a tool of intimidation, fear and murder.
What sort of game can be hunted on the streets of a state capital, and/or inside a statehouse? Pretty much none.
Which leaves defence. Who, exactly, does this *tiny* (a couple hundred in Michigan, which has a population of ~10,000,000, or a thousand or so in Wisconsin which has a population of ~6,000,000) group of folks think they need to defend themselves against?
The police? Nope. The police merely make sure folks *don't* impinge on the rights of others. Legislators? They aren't a *physical* threat to any of those people. Statehouse employees? The same.
As such, the only utility around bringing such weapons into/around the statehouse is the implied threat of violence and murder: "We have guns. Do what we want because we're ready and willing to start killing people if you don't!"
These folks are a tiny minority (note that their 2A rights *and* their right to assemble and seek redress of their grievances was in absolutely no way impaired or blocked) in the states where such
astroturfing"protests" funded and organized by an even smaller group of funders.As has previously been widely reported [krebsonsecurity.com], the bulk of the organizing, astroturfing and funds for domains and Facebook groups supporting these "protests" are centrally managed and funded, not by local grassroots groups, but by national *special interests* like the NRA and the GOP, and are being staged (in the theatrical sense) to cynically politicize the biggest public health catastrophe in living memory.
I'll say it explicitly: the .001% of Michiganders and .00333% of Wisconsinites who are "protesting" have *not* had their rights to bear arms or to petition the government for redress of their grievances abridged *in any way.*
Those folks can and do have their say, even when they do so with the implied threat of deadly violence.
It seems to me that these folks are freely exercising their constitutional rights. However, they are doing so with an implied threat of violence and murder. That is *not* the American way. We're (>99% at least) not a bunch of political terrorists here. Making (implied or otherwise) terroristic threats may be protected speech/activity, it's not and never has been the right way to go about seeking redress of "grievances."
However, given that while folks have such rights which they can and should exercise, their activities and the results they demand endangers other people. Should these folks transmit Coronavirus to others, they are violating the rights of those other people.
As many (usually attributed to Oliver Wendell Holmes) have said, "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."
As Americans, we have many rights guaranteed by Constitutions (both Federal and state). However, those rights are *not* absolute. Engaging in activities that directly threatens the health and well-being of others denies those others *their* rights is *not* okay.
All that said, despite the implied threat of violence and murder by this tiny minority of astroturfers and extremists, as long as their "swinging of fists" doesn't extend to the beginning of another's nose, there's no issue in our system of government.
This was evident in the lack of arrests or seizures of weapons during these
shadow plays"protests."Should a majority of the residents of the states in question decide that current elected officials aren't doing the right thing, vote them out. There's an election coming up soon.
This is a little rambling, but I will assume you get my points. If there are questions about, or rebuttals to, those points, please feel free to state them. I will respond and won't engage in personal attacks. However, if you do, I will summarily ignore you.
Thank you for your time and attention
--Anonymous Coward
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2020, @12:20AM (3 children)
Ha Ha HA HA HA.
Haven't you ever noticed that armed protestors don't get teargassed, pepper-sprayed, beaten with batons, tased, or shot (rubber or lead bullets)? They just have a peaceful non-violent protest and then go home. Maybe Heinlein was right, an armed society is a polite society.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2020, @01:26AM (2 children)
As I (and you pointed out), the police did not impinge on anyone's right to peaceably assemble or bear arms. So what's with the "Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha?"
Do you claim that the police acted inappropriately in these situations? If so, how? If not, why are you implying that there's some nefarious activity on the part of the police in these specific circumstances?
I'm not a huge fan of police (It's not that I don't like them, I just feel better when they're not around), but you seem to be contradicting yourself. Is that some sort of cognitive dissonance, or were you attempting to make some sort of (as yet unclear) point?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday May 04 2020, @05:25AM
I think it safe to say that the police often do act inappropriately. Especially in one-on-one situations, they escalate a problem as often as they deescalate. They tend to pause, at least momentarily, when there are groups of people, but that pause still leads to problematic conduct often enough. Perhaps you recall the story of a concussion grenade exploding in a baby's crib? I find that problematic, and should make everyone question the need of SWAT units. The bumbling fools can't get things right often enough, they can't be justified.
These protestors couldn't know beforehand how the governor would react. Bear in mind that the State Police take their orders directly from the governor. Had she ordered the police to remove the protestors, the individual cops may or may not have agreed with the orders, but the protestors would have been removed. Except - being armed, the governor was less bold about giving the order, and the cops would have been far less eager to carry out those orders.
Hail to the Nibbler in Chief.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 05 2020, @09:52AM
I would say in these specific circumstances there was no neferaious activity on the part of the police because the protestors were armed.
If there had been no weapons there, they likely would have been assaulted with batons, pepper-sprayed, and forcibly removed, as often happens at unarmed protests that civil authorities object to.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday May 04 2020, @04:53AM (2 children)
I disagree on almost all of that.
The purpose of the weapons was to draw attention to the protest, as much as anything. The secondary purpose of the weapons was to defend. When one sees a bunch of armed people, one does not carelessly decide to send in the storm troopers to sweep them away. The storm troopers remain an option, but careful consideration goes into their deployment. The governor already grumbled that the protestors were a bunch of lawless miscreants, setting the stage for deployment of storm troopers - but she could not afford a real skirmish with dead bodies lying around. It would have been political suicide for her. The woman was restricted to some grumbling, because of the presence of weapons.
The protestor's weapons served their purpose of self defense, without a single shot being fired.
That's cool. Continue when ready!
Hail to the Nibbler in Chief.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2020, @07:08AM (1 child)
How special of you, Runaway! And since your opinion has less weight than a turd with the same opinion, why should we care? You are not even an American! Polack, being manipulated by his Ruskie masters! And, you are not that bright! Can you identify China on a world map? One that Pompeo carries around just in case he runs into ignoramouses like you? No, Runaway, you can disagree with whatever you want, as often as you want, and it will carry no weight with anyone. I suspect your spawn ignore your rants as much as each and every Soylentil does. So tell us again, Boomer, what is the coming civil wear going to be like?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2020, @07:42AM
ok coward
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2020, @04:59AM
You might want to read the "update" on your link. [krebsonsecurity.com] It's at the bottom. The 'centralized' 'secretive' 'shadowy' 'astroturfing' group opening all of these reopen*.com domains? Yeah, turns out it was some crazy old hippie in Florida who was trying to "keep them out of the hands of people trying to organize protests." Well done Krebs! We did it Reddit! I love how conspiracy theories have become so mainstream in America, so long as it's a conspiracy theory against the right people. Protests against lockdowns are happening worldwide. Even in China they've had protests, which are very few and far between in modern times, with very near 0 western coverage. You don't realize how batshit insane you sound only because you surround yourself with others and media who also parrot such conspiracy theories.
---
Lots of folks not only need but also want to work to make a living for themselves. These lockdowns are stopping that, and there is an increasing amount of evidence that the mortality rate of COVID is much lower than previously thought due to asymptomatic carriers. Asymptomatics don't show up on official stats without arbitrary testing. But in the regions where they have done these more arbitrary tests it turns out far more people are infected than thought - most of them simply have no, or negligible, symptoms. That's good and bad. Good because it means that the mortality rate is far lower than expected. Bad because it means that it's looking increasingly difficult to try to combat the virus with lockdowns and the like.
This isn't to say I disagree with the lockdowns. But I also acknowledge that's because of my unique circumstance. I already work from home and have enough resources to be self sufficient for an extended period of time even if society went tits up. And my wife who normally works outside the house is also now working remotely which has been awesome. But for *many* people this is not even remotely true. And for them the risk of getting the virus is probably less harmful than forcing them to continue staying in lockdown. Perhaps the best solution is one of choice. Legally enable people to have the choice to stay in lockdown (in other words require companies continue to support and enable remote work where possible) but do not *require* people stay in lockdown if they're personally willing to accept the risks involved with this virus.