3 ms·

I know that. But guess what, that other person is out in public too. If their risk tolerance is such that they absolutely do not want to get sick & risk taking

I know that. But guess what, that other person is out in public too. If their risk tolerance is such that they absolutely do not want to get sick & risk taking it home to their elderly parent, well that’s fine but, they need to self quarantine. My point is I have a higher risk tolerance level in terms of contracting the virus from a non-symptomatic stranger in public because 1) i don’t mind being sick enough to limit my activities 2) I can control my exposure to high risk people except in public spaces (again, if you’re high risk, why are you in public - that’s on you). What you all are implying is that anything less than complete mandatory quarantine is the correct course of action. I just don’t agree with this doomsday situation given what I know about this virus at this point. Even 2 degrees of separation from confirmed cases isn’t being taken this seriously by the CDC/medical community. And you’re essentially telling me I’m an idiot and negligent/malicious person for going out in public with no other reason to believe it’s unsafe. I just happen to believe nobody is negligent in these situations and the responsibility lies with those at risk to reduce their risk profile.

Vinnl 7y ago
If many low-risk persons like you still spread it widely enough, enough of them will still be hospitalised at the same time to overload the medical system, thereby putting others at risk. Consider this: you're some random person going against the advice of experts. If you're right, great, you've been able to eat out. If you're wrong, you've contributed to significant suffering of other people. Is that something you want to risk based on your self-confidence? Is that something you would appreciate others risking to you based on their self-confidence?
ajross 7y ago
> What you all are implying is that anything less than complete mandatory quarantine is the correct course of action. No. I'm saying you shouldn't be morally rationalizing it as you accepting a "personal" risk. Any contact is a risk to everyone, and you need to accept that. NOR can you rationalize the chance of infecting others at the restaurant as "their personal risk", for exactly the same reason! Any transmission is a transmission, and it can lead to others. We're trying to keep the number of transmissions low so it doesn't grow out of control. Now, again: unless you're in a major hot spot a single restaurant visit is (probably) a tolerable risk. But it is not and cannot be understood as a "personal" decision. It's still an increase in pandemic risk and needs to be understood that way.
- conductr 7y ago
  > It's still an increase in pandemic risk and needs to be understood that way. It’s not mutual exclusive. I do get your point. But if restaurants are open and government allows them to remain open then this is a personal risk assessment as to how much public and other people handling your food you are willing to accept. That’s what I mean.

Vinnl 7y ago

If many low-risk persons like you still spread it widely enough, enough of them will still be hospitalised at the same time to overload the medical system, thereby putting others at risk. Consider this: you're some random person going against the advice of experts. If you're right, great, you've been able to eat out. If you're wrong, you've contributed to significant suffering of other people. Is that something you want to risk based on your self-confidence? Is that something you would appreciate others risking to you based on their self-confidence?

ajross 7y ago

> What you all are implying is that anything less than complete mandatory quarantine is the correct course of action. No. I'm saying you shouldn't be morally rationalizing it as you accepting a "personal" risk. Any contact is a risk to everyone, and you need to accept that. NOR can you rationalize the chance of infecting others at the restaurant as "their personal risk", for exactly the same reason! Any transmission is a transmission, and it can lead to others. We're trying to keep the number of transmissions low so it doesn't grow out of control. Now, again: unless you're in a major hot spot a single restaurant visit is (probably) a tolerable risk. But it is not and cannot be understood as a "personal" decision. It's still an increase in pandemic risk and needs to be understood that way.

conductr 7y ago
> It's still an increase in pandemic risk and needs to be understood that way. It’s not mutual exclusive. I do get your point. But if restaurants are open and government allows them to remain open then this is a personal risk assessment as to how much public and other people handling your food you are willing to accept. That’s what I mean.