LogFAQs > #936984074

adjl posted...

The problem, however, is that it's not just themselves that they're endangering. Sure, we have the right to shun people who might have gotten themselves infected, but that's hard unless they wear a giant sign saying "I gather in large groups every week I'm probably infected." The fact of the matter is that people still have to go outside sometimes, even with distancing recommendations in place. Cutting down on the number of people that are able to gather in large numbers helps to make sure that when people do go outside, they're less likely to encounter infected people (and, by extension, to become infected and risk infecting other people).

These regulations aren't to protect individuals, they're to protect society. Yes, society is made up of individuals and the regulations require actions and sacrifices on the part of individuals, but it's a mistake to think of this in terms of telling people not to endanger themselves. This is much, much bigger than that, and the more people comply with the recommendations/requirements, the more lives are going to be saved.

Isn't it though? The people who are compromised for whatever reason, old age, immunocompromised, etc. can choose to sequester themselves largely from society. Even something as simple as the common cold can very easily be deadly to someone in that position. In order for those people to be infected, they would also have to make a choice to interact with potentially infected people. Before anyone says it, I get why this virus is dangerous. Asymptomatic, incubation periods, etc. I get that. But the concern here is for the people who are compromised in some way. The death rate for otherwise healthy individuals appears to be inconsequentially low, though the data is still being collected.

Now lets talk about lives saved. I think at some point we actually have to have a conversation about the worth of a human life. I know its easy to talk in platitudes about how every life is priceless, etc. but that's really not true. If this virus was only a concern for say, people with MS, we definitely would not be shuttering the economy for them. But let's assume the estimated number of deaths from the virus is half of what it currently is. Do we still take the same approach to preventing the spread? At what point do we say, 'You know, this isn't a big enough problem to be concerned about'.

I find it concerning that so many people are in favor of what effectively amounts to minor martial law. Partial law? People in California and similar states are being arrested and/or fined for being out in public. Just the other day a guy was arrested for paddle boarding out in the ocean completely by himself. That absolutely upsets me and I think it should upset everyone.

I hate to trudge out the same old Franklin quote that's been used a thousand times, but it's more important now than it ever was - "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety".

I'm not defending people making dumbass decisions. But I am defending their right to make their dumbass decisions. If the result of their decisions is their selves dying and possibly infecting other people? I think I could live with that. I would also note that I think anyone willingly spreading the virus, akin to having aids and not telling a sexual partner or whatever, should absolutely be a crime. And a severe one. Otherwise, I think the people should be free to make their own decisions.

---

I promise that if the game stinks I will make a topic about how I hate it and you can all laugh at me - Mead on Fallout 76