4 ms·

Italy has basically suspended its citizens' civil liberties across huge swaths of the country. That does not seem like anything close to a proportional response

Italy has basically suspended its citizens' civil liberties across huge swaths of the country. That does not seem like anything close to a proportional response, and I am very troubled by how okay everyone seems to be with the curtailing of civil liberties. Remember, the 1st amendment guarantees the right of free association and assembly in the United States. Even though I'm voluntarily limiting my exposure to at-risk populations, I will not comply if someone tries to forbid me from moving around; that would set an awful precedent.

empath75 7y ago
I think you might want to recalibrate your idea of how dangerous this virus is.
- whatshisface 7y ago
  The virus is dangerous, but so is a government with unlimited power. This is the complicated and contradictory world we live in...
  - Angostura 7y ago
    Bottom line: You have come into contact with coronavirus - the government asks you to self-isolate at home. Do you? Or do you go off to your favourite bar?
    - whatshisface 7y ago
      You do, but you're talking about self-isolating. Here's the scenario we're discussing: the US decides that Assange has Diphtheria and tells him to stay home and not talk to anybody. Does he? Cambodia decides that the opposition party conference is full of dirty politicians and cancels it. Do they still try to meet? In the first case, Assange would be protected by due process and a public hearing (that is the present US law for quarantine orders). In the second case, there might be a problem. You do not want the government using an emergency as an excuse to grab unlimited and unchecked power.
    - leggomylibro 7y ago
      Obviously you don't run off to your favorite bar, but it all depends. If the government won't pay you to skip work and your workplace won't give you PTO, you might not have a choice if you want to make rent. And I would certainly flee the area if it were couched as an order rather than a request; I will not put myself in a position where I am essentially under arbitrary arrest by a capricious authority which changes its response every few hours, and I am shocked that anybody would.
      - lliamander 7y ago
        I don't think any society, no matter how libertarian or anarchic, is going to allow people to move freely and conduct business as usual in the face of a pandemic. As always "the right to extend one's fist ends where the nose of another begins". At the very least, individuals with the disease are endangering their fellow citizens if they don't isolate. Arguably, employers that do not make reasonable accommodations for sick employees are also guilty of public endangerment. Of course, their is always the risk that the drastic measures persist once the threat to public health dies down, but it's by no means necessary that such will be the case. Remember: even a small decrease in the growth rate of a disease spread can result in a large decrease in the total number of cases that occur.
  - davidw 7y ago
    My suggestions are things that a lot of people could start doing without the government being involved.
officialjunk 7y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kas0tIxDvrg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kas0tIxDvrg please watch this video by 3blue1brown, a math professor in the US, about the situation.
- hef19898 7y ago
  Maybe take a biologist next time?
- vecter 7y ago
  Grant Sanderson is a great guy and makes wonderful educational videos, but he isn't a math professor (not that that's relevant to this discussion either).
  - officialjunk 7y ago
    thanks for the correction
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
dredmorbius 7y ago
The principle characteristic of epidemics is the collective and community risk and response tremendously outweigh individual aspects. Measures taken do comparatively little to address any one individual's risk or concerns. Addressing individuals simply isn't viable or useful. Taking measures to assure population health, dynamics, spread, total healthcare system load, etc., are what matter. As someone who'se quite the champion of individual rights, for now: individual rights be damned in the interest of community health. Please note that this statement has multiple elements, all critical: - The overall interest is community health outcomes (CHO). - Individual rights not associated with CHO are not affected. Rights suppressions not advancing or relating to CHO are inappropriate. - The principle is temporary, for the duration of the epidemic, or until such time as any control is utterly futile. Epidemiological response is about reducing vectors, contacts, reservoirs, and susceptibility, as well as second-order risks. Limiting movement, enhanced disease monitoring, contacts-tracing, quarantine, free treatment, mandatory vaccination (if available), financial aid and intervention to individuals, businesses, and the financial sector (in that order), rationing, if necessary, and measures taken against community-detrimental actions (a long list: disinformation, misinformation, hoarding, price-gouging, intentional contamination or spreading disease, flouting quarantine/curfew, requiring sick workers to work orfiring them, etc.) That leaves a broad set of other rights, but is a substantial curtailment.
tzs 7y ago
There is a bunch of Supreme Court precedent that says it is legal for states to impose mandatory quarantines. They have to provide due process, not be arbitrary, yadda yadda.

empath75 7y ago

I think you might want to recalibrate your idea of how dangerous this virus is.

whatshisface 7y ago
The virus is dangerous, but so is a government with unlimited power. This is the complicated and contradictory world we live in...
- Angostura 7y ago
  Bottom line: You have come into contact with coronavirus - the government asks you to self-isolate at home. Do you? Or do you go off to your favourite bar?
  - whatshisface 7y ago
    You do, but you're talking about self-isolating. Here's the scenario we're discussing: the US decides that Assange has Diphtheria and tells him to stay home and not talk to anybody. Does he? Cambodia decides that the opposition party conference is full of dirty politicians and cancels it. Do they still try to meet? In the first case, Assange would be protected by due process and a public hearing (that is the present US law for quarantine orders). In the second case, there might be a problem. You do not want the government using an emergency as an excuse to grab unlimited and unchecked power.
  - leggomylibro 7y ago
    Obviously you don't run off to your favorite bar, but it all depends. If the government won't pay you to skip work and your workplace won't give you PTO, you might not have a choice if you want to make rent. And I would certainly flee the area if it were couched as an order rather than a request; I will not put myself in a position where I am essentially under arbitrary arrest by a capricious authority which changes its response every few hours, and I am shocked that anybody would.
    - lliamander 7y ago
      I don't think any society, no matter how libertarian or anarchic, is going to allow people to move freely and conduct business as usual in the face of a pandemic. As always "the right to extend one's fist ends where the nose of another begins". At the very least, individuals with the disease are endangering their fellow citizens if they don't isolate. Arguably, employers that do not make reasonable accommodations for sick employees are also guilty of public endangerment. Of course, their is always the risk that the drastic measures persist once the threat to public health dies down, but it's by no means necessary that such will be the case. Remember: even a small decrease in the growth rate of a disease spread can result in a large decrease in the total number of cases that occur.
- davidw 7y ago
  My suggestions are things that a lot of people could start doing without the government being involved.

officialjunk 7y ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kas0tIxDvrg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kas0tIxDvrg please watch this video by 3blue1brown, a math professor in the US, about the situation.

hef19898 7y ago
Maybe take a biologist next time?
vecter 7y ago
Grant Sanderson is a great guy and makes wonderful educational videos, but he isn't a math professor (not that that's relevant to this discussion either).
- officialjunk 7y ago
  thanks for the correction

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

dredmorbius 7y ago

The principle characteristic of epidemics is the collective and community risk and response tremendously outweigh individual aspects. Measures taken do comparatively little to address any one individual's risk or concerns. Addressing individuals simply isn't viable or useful. Taking measures to assure population health, dynamics, spread, total healthcare system load, etc., are what matter. As someone who'se quite the champion of individual rights, for now: individual rights be damned in the interest of community health. Please note that this statement has multiple elements, all critical: - The overall interest is community health outcomes (CHO). - Individual rights not associated with CHO are not affected. Rights suppressions not advancing or relating to CHO are inappropriate. - The principle is temporary, for the duration of the epidemic, or until such time as any control is utterly futile. Epidemiological response is about reducing vectors, contacts, reservoirs, and susceptibility, as well as second-order risks. Limiting movement, enhanced disease monitoring, contacts-tracing, quarantine, free treatment, mandatory vaccination (if available), financial aid and intervention to individuals, businesses, and the financial sector (in that order), rationing, if necessary, and measures taken against community-detrimental actions (a long list: disinformation, misinformation, hoarding, price-gouging, intentional contamination or spreading disease, flouting quarantine/curfew, requiring sick workers to work orfiring them, etc.) That leaves a broad set of other rights, but is a substantial curtailment.

tzs 7y ago

There is a bunch of Supreme Court precedent that says it is legal for states to impose mandatory quarantines. They have to provide due process, not be arbitrary, yadda yadda.