3 ms·
I'm unsure if the person you responded to undertstood what you meant. I understood it as "if I am >60+, e.g. at risk, would i be free to not participate in the
by totony 7y ago
I'm unsure if the person you responded to undertstood what you meant. I understood it as "if I am >60+, e.g. at risk, would i be free to not participate in the quarantine if partial quarantine were to happen"
I'd argue that no, you should not be. Because if you get it, you will most likely require care and overload hospitals, which is what the whole point of that (partial) quarantine is. Either that or you forfeit your right to healthcare, which has loads of moral issues
- FpUser 7y agoWell you've got no moral rights to lock person up for a year or two with totally unknown outcome. If you are so eager to save public funds you have a lots of places to start shaving. You might be amazed when you look how governments spend money. Also if locked up for extended amount of time said person is likely develop whole bunch of ailments include mental that would "overwhelm"(tm) healthcare as well unless you deny them treatment and let them wonder the streets. Likely loss of income will cause the same thing, them being kicked out from their dwellings.
- totony 7y agoI agree that you have no rights to lock someone up, but society seem to have already accepted that others have the right to tell you what to do with your life, e.g. locking down someone for suicide attempt I was also comparing lockdown vs partial lockdown, which I feel still does more damage to more people to be total
- FpUser 7y agoThat's the major problem with society. Many people could sell their rights in return to some mythical crap that politicians sell them often under deliberately false or mistaken pretense. On a particular topic. This hardly qualifies as suicide attempt. Just increased risk. Maybe the same as selling alcohol to people knowing that many of them will end up driving drunk or many other similar things.