Der Lockdown, dumm

doubt, a pretty damning indictment of the idea that lockdown was an opportunity for social improvement. 4. The Rights Fallacy, or, the idea that children’s rights should always take precedence over any other consideration. This is a common refrain in the articles I am here discussing. We are told that “children’s rights should be at the heart of decision-making” (p. 1,322), that “children’s rights should be the starting point for all decision-making” (p. 1,329), and that “children’s rights should be the guiding principle” (p. 1,329). The problem with this is that it is simply not true. Children’s rights, like all rights, are not absolute. They must be balanced against other rights and interests, and against the practical realities of the world. This is not to say that children’s rights are unimportant or should be ignored. They are crucially important, and should be given due consideration in decision-making processes. But they cannot and should not be the sole determinant of policy. The reality is that in a crisis situation like a pandemic, difficult decisions have to be made, and sometimes those decisions will have negative consequences for certain rights, including children’s rights. This is not ideal, but it is a reality that we must grapple with. The insistence that children’s rights should always take precedence over any other consideration is not only unrealistic, but also potentially harmful. It can lead to a narrow and one-sided approach to policy-making, which fails to take into account the broader context and the needs and rights of other individuals and groups. 5. The Expert Fallacy, or, the idea that experts have all the answers and should be deferred to in decision-making processes. This is a recurring theme in the articles I am here discussing. We are told that “experts should be at the heart of decision-making” (p. 1,322), that “expertise should be the starting point for all decision-making” (p. 1,329), and that “experts should be the guiding principle” (p. 1,329). The problem with this is that it assumes that experts have a monopoly on knowledge and wisdom, and that their opinions and recommendations should be unquestioningly followed. This is a dangerous assumption. While experts certainly have valuable knowledge and insights to contribute, decision-making should be a collaborative and inclusive process, which takes into account a range of perspectives and considerations. It should not be dominated by a narrow group of experts, who may have their own biases and blind spots. Moreover, expertise is not static or infallible. It is constantly evolving and subject to debate and disagreement. Different experts may have different opinions and recommendations, based on their own interpretations of the available evidence. Decision-making should therefore be based on a careful and critical evaluation of the available evidence, taking into account a range of expert opinions and perspectives. It should not be a matter of simply deferring to the supposed authority of experts. In conclusion, the articles I am here discussing are characterized by a number of fallacies, which undermine their arguments and recommendations. These fallacies include the Managerial Fallacy, the Listening Fallacy, the Instrumental Fallacy, the Rights Fallacy, and the Expert Fallacy. While the authors of these articles may have good intentions and genuine concerns for children’s rights, their arguments are flawed and fail to take into account the complexities and trade-offs involved in decision-making processes. It is important to critically evaluate and challenge these fallacies, in order to ensure that policy-making is based on a balanced and informed approach, which takes into account the needs and rights of all individuals and groups

Original Artikel Teaser

The Lockdown, Stupid

During the heady days of February and March 2020, my first daughter was approaching her third birthday. I remember that time dimly now, as though peering at it through a fog. The main recollection I have of my emotional state was that I was deeply concerned about what was going to happen to my daughter and children like her. Not because I was worried about the virus, you understand; I was one of the (it seems, very few) people who was actually keeping tabs on the stats and knew that the modal victim of the disease was somebody in his or her late 70s with two comorbidities. My worries stemmed from the, it seemed to me self-evident, point that children

Details zu The Lockdown, Stupid