|
|
Post by cardfan on Apr 7, 2020 9:47:55 GMT -6
Agree to disagree then about opening back up. I’d personally rather try to hang on a little bit longer rather than take the chance on getting a lot more people sick and or dead. Which in its on right would be very damaging to not only thousands of people’s health but Also to the economy. Are you interested in disabling a large number of our health care workers, including doctors, who would be subject to much higher dosing of the virus. And then you get the trickle down of having less health care workers to treat people having all the other health issues we suffer from. And you can wipe out a business by illness just as easily.
The social distancing and staying at home is starting to work. Give it more time to make a real dent in the curve. Or, open things back up now and watch the numbers head back up. And maybe you or a loved one ends up dead.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Apr 7, 2020 9:48:08 GMT -6
A. Get back to normal B. Avoid risk What about avoiding harming others?
If the old normal is now dangerous due to a new circumstance, that has to be factored in.
If you drive on icy streets or in a storm you slow down, maybe even pull off the road and stop. NOT just to protect yourself but to protect others who you might injure. Normal is now different. Short term, intermediate term, long term it will be different than it was before the virus emerged.
What we have to figure out is what the new normal is where we balance things out. Right now we are in emergency response to a severe emergency. When time passes and it is safe we may be able to be "normal." Or, more likely we may have to define a new normal. Less severe restriction.
|
|
|
|
Post by cardfan on Apr 7, 2020 9:54:34 GMT -6
And we still need more time to determine what treatment best reduces the chance of dying. Especially for those who are already compromised in some way. Having No effective treatment = no way out of the woods without killing and permanently scarring a lot of people. Hopefully a vaccine can be developed. Especially because this may become seasonal.
Bottom line, it sucks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Apr 7, 2020 10:23:42 GMT -6
If opening a business is a threat to the public health, I don't think the individual has a god given right to do whatever they want. This is a case where the owner and the customers aren't the only ones who can suffer the consequence. If they were the only ones taking the risk I could agree. In this case if either one is positive and passes the disease to the other it would not just be them hurt, but be everyone they meet elsewhere who also is at risk.
I agree we need to make a longer term balance between unavoidable risk of disease and unavoidable economic harm to people. This is short term restriction. Painful. Death is rather more long term a cost...
By this logic, alcohol companies should not exist. That didn't work out so well when they tried to ban them. Life has inherent risks. You can avoid them, but you can't make others avoid risk if they choose not to. It's like banning driving because you might hurt someone else. It's unreasonable, even though, by your standards of injury and death rate, it's a public health hazard. Just like it's unreasonable to make it impossible for people to live their lives for an extended period of time. They simply can't afford it. Maybe you can work from home, but how many people can? How many can afford to be off work for 2, 3, 4 months? Very few. What do you think those people are going to do when the groceries run out? Maybe you think I'm callous, and that's fine. My self image isn't based on the opinions of anonymous internet posters (which is a nice way of saying I don't care what you think). I'm just realistic. Doesn't mean I want people to die, I just accept the fact that some will. I already know 2 people that have died from the virus, and to be honest, it's a little frightening, as they were close to my age. But I refuse to let fear dictate how I live, or die. |
|
|
|
Post by cardfan on Apr 7, 2020 10:24:58 GMT -6
Everyone just stay healthy and safe.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Apr 7, 2020 10:30:36 GMT -6
The social distancing and staying at home is starting to work. Give it more time to make a real dent in the curve. Or, open things back up now and watch the numbers head back up. And maybe you or a loved one ends up dead. If we had responded earlier, we would not have such a long time in this phase of mitigation. We wasted the gain from the travel ban, we had about a month head start on Europe and the rest of the world. ,
That's water under the bridge. But the lesson applies here. Government officials decided to not hurt anyone short term, buried their heads and hoped it would all go away.
If we choose short term suffering, we give time to prepare for later waves, to develop treatment, tracking procedures, develop a vaccine and so on.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Apr 7, 2020 11:01:27 GMT -6
If opening a business is a threat to the public health, I don't think the individual has a god given right to do whatever they want. This is a case where the owner and the customers aren't the only ones who can suffer the consequence. If they were the only ones taking the risk I could agree. In this case if either one is positive and passes the disease to the other it would not just be them hurt, but be everyone they meet elsewhere who also is at risk.
I agree we need to make a longer term balance between unavoidable risk of disease and unavoidable economic harm to people. This is short term restriction. Painful. Death is rather more long term a cost...
By this logic, alcohol companies should not exist. That didn't work out so well when they tried to ban them. Life has inherent risks. You can avoid them, but you can't make others avoid risk if they choose not to. This is not like that in important ways.
A few months ago this risk did not exist. We are in the midst of change trying to mitigate risk. We are taking temporary emergency measures to reduce risk until we develop better ways.
Prohibition was long term not an emergency measure to mitigate a sudden and unexpected increase in drinking. You are right that we dropped the total ban which wasn't working anyway. We did not just say let everyone drink and hurt others.
We do still have measures that restrict business as it was "normal" before prohibition. We tax alcohol. We restrict businesses from selling alcohol. We close businesses that do not follow measures to mitigate the harm, like checking ID, not selling to drunks in a bar.
We put lots of restrictions on the people who do take the risk of drinking and might harm others. They can't drive drunk without consequence. They can't work. They go to jail if they harm someone. They pay civil damages if they harm others.
Do you want to rescind those measures?
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Apr 7, 2020 11:24:02 GMT -6
If opening a business is a threat to the public health, I don't think the individual has a god given right to do whatever they want. This is a case where the owner and the customers aren't the only ones who can suffer the consequence. If they were the only ones taking the risk I could agree.
Life has inherent risks. You can avoid them, but you can't make others avoid risk if they choose not to.... I'm not callous.....I'm just realistic. Doesn't mean I want people to die, I just accept the fact that some will. I already know 2 people that have died from the virus, and to be honest, it's a little frightening, as they were close to my age. But I refuse to let fear dictate how I live, or die. You are callous in the sense you elevate your "right" to live and die as you please above others around you who also have rights. You want to dictate how they live and die, by engaging in high risk behavior. You deny personal responsibility. It's all about you? Back up a minute. Your freedom ends where it imposes unreasonably risk on others.
What is reasonable risk and the amount of reasonable risk is that we have to take now is what we need to decide in creating public policy.
Some risk is inevitable. But, I guess you still think this is "just the flu," an ordinary everyday event we can ignore. That is not realistic. This is not going to just one day miraculously disappear if we ignore it.
I agree some people will die, I accept that. I do not accept that we refuse to take measures to limit the death.
|
|
|
|
Post by ruffledfeathers on Apr 7, 2020 12:02:05 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Apr 7, 2020 13:01:57 GMT -6
I agree we all can take measures to protect ourselves in some settings and should. I am not sure the link is accurate entirely, but in any case there is no time to take vitamins and build immunity...
And at this point we are dealing with an emergency measure. The virus is like a lot of natural disasters where government response is justified.
Plus I think we owe a duty to others to limit harm we do. Libertarian philosophy limits your personal freedom when it imposes harm on others.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Apr 8, 2020 6:33:37 GMT -6
Your freedom ends where it imposes unreasonably risk on others.
Who determines when it is an unreasonable risk? You? That is the antithesis of freedom, and the last I checked we (theoretically) live in a free society. Forcing everyone to stay home because they might get sick is onerous at best, unconstitutional at worst. Let each person determine the amount of risk they're willing to take, and leave the rest of us alone. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Apr 8, 2020 7:18:28 GMT -6
Your freedom ends where it imposes unreasonably risk on others.
Let each person determine the amount of risk they're willing to take, and leave the rest of us alone. If you are going to take the risk of being infected and it only could hurt you I would likely agree.
If you are going to take risks, for example regularly driving 90 miles and hour, the rest of society is threatened. Are you saying everyone else just has to accept that? We all just have to look out and avoid your speeding car?
At some point you have no right to endanger others and they have a right to restrict your freedom.
Government may be imperfect but is the best way to determine limits like that. It works better than the alternative.
|
|
|
|
Post by ruffledfeathers on Apr 8, 2020 7:21:44 GMT -6
Lurkin, sent you a pm.
RF
|
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Apr 8, 2020 7:32:09 GMT -6
If you are going to take the risk of being infected and it only could hurt you I would likely agree.
If you are going to take risks, for example regularly driving 90 miles and hour, the rest of society is threatened. Are you saying everyone else just has to accept that? We all just have to look out and avoid your speeding car?
At some point you have no right to endanger others and they have a right to restrict your freedom.
Government may be imperfect but is the best way to determine limits like that. It works better than the alternative.
Your hypothesis is that driving the speed limit incurs no risk? |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Apr 8, 2020 9:00:30 GMT -6
If you are going to take the risk of being infected and it only could hurt you I would likely agree.
If you are going to take risks, for example regularly driving 90 miles and hour, the rest of society is threatened. Are you saying everyone else just has to accept that? We all just have to look out and avoid your speeding car?
Your hypothesis is that driving the speed limit incurs no risk? Of course not. Are you saying it is the same risk as driving 90mph? 100mph? NO LIMIT?
The point here is that it's not just the risk to YOU that we are talking about. It's the risk to others.
|
|
