[teejers1]

Well, he's right for a number of elderly who listen to him, because it may well be their last Thanksgiving when junior brings home COVID-19 from the university :/

Or maybe the the elderly person will miss a visit that would have come off swimmingly and sink further into an end-of-life depression that could have been avoided.

It's easy here to push for some draconian lock down, celebrate because the case rate is going down, and ignore the rising social anxiety, with the inevitable rise in family distress, maybe child and spousal abuse, depression and so on. You will not accept those as consequences of the over harsh policy, but they are.

A balanced approach isn't going to please anyone. You'll have more disease than you'd like if everyone was in lockdown, and more social distress than if no one was. But that's in the nature of balance. Right now, I think a more aggressive lockdown seems appropriate because of the spike. But even now, push back is a good thing, a very good thing - and, by the way, an essential hallmark of a free society.

I think everyone here "gets" the tradeoffs - they just prioritize them differently.  That's to be expected.

As for Atlas, it's not a First Amendment issue for Stanford, a private university (though I think Stanford gets enough federal $$ that an argument could be made that it should apply - heck, maybe there is already authority out there to that effect).  But I think it valid to have scholarly criteria for those on the university payroll to at least attempt to adhere to, and if you fail, then you're subject to discipline.  I realize that the devil is in the details - there is a great possibility for mischief/speech restriction in that structure.  But in theory it could (and you like to think, would) work.  Hoover Institute may have its own criteria . . . and that's probably okay . . . to a degree.  But given the close ties to the university, it's fair that Stanford has some hand in those factors.

BTW, Lex hit on the most interesting First Amendment issue that will be with us for a while:  whether Facebook, Twitter, and IG platforms should be subject to the First Amendment.  I think there is a decent chance that ultimately they will be, even though efforts to date have failed.   Those platforms now control (or are the springboard) for the majority of speech going on in this country.  Will be interesting to see how "government" gets inserted into those entities for First Amendment applicability purposes . . .

[teejers1]

Well, he's right for a number of elderly who listen to him, because it may well be their last Thanksgiving when junior brings home COVID-19 from the university :/

Or maybe the the elderly person will miss a visit that would have come off swimmingly and sink further into an end-of-life depression that could have been avoided.

It's easy here to push for some draconian lock down, celebrate because the case rate is going down, and ignore the rising social anxiety, with the inevitable rise in family distress, maybe child and spousal abuse, depression and so on. You will not accept those as consequences of the over harsh policy, but they are.

A balanced approach isn't going to please anyone. You'll have more disease than you'd like if everyone was in lockdown, and more social distress than if no one was. But that's in the nature of balance. Right now, I think a more aggressive lockdown seems appropriate because of the spike. But even now, push back is a good thing, a very good thing - and, by the way, an essential hallmark of a free society.

I think everyone here "gets" the tradeoffs - they just prioritize them differently.  That's to be expected.

As for Atlas, it's not a First Amendment issue for Stanford, a private university (though I think Stanford gets enough federal $$ that an argument could be made that it should apply - heck, maybe there is already authority out there to that effect).  But I think it valid to have scholarly criteria for those on the university payroll to at least attempt to adhere to, and if you fail, then you're subject to discipline.  I realize that the devil is in the details - there is a great possibility for mischief/speech restriction in that structure.  But in theory it could (and you like to think, would) work.  Hoover Institute may have its own criteria . . . and that's probably okay . . . to a degree.  But given the close ties to the university, it's fair that Stanford has some hand in those factors.

BTW, Lex hit on the most interesting First Amendment issue that will be with us for a while:  whether Facebook, Twitter, and IG platforms should be subject to the First Amendment.  I think there is a decent chance that ultimately they will be, even though efforts to date have failed.   Those platforms now control (or are the springboard) for the majority of speech going on in this country.  Will be interesting to see how "government" gets inserted into those entities for First Amendment applicability purposes . . .