4 ms·

Why are there so many armchair quarterbacks in this thread spouting dismissive criticism? Paul already acknowledges that "success is far from guaranteed." If th

Why are there so many armchair quarterbacks in this thread spouting dismissive criticism? Paul already acknowledges that "success is far from guaranteed." If this works, great! If it doesn't, I don't think any of us are worse off... This seems like a heavy application of The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics https://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-ethics/ https://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-eth...

zaroth 6y ago
I’d be less inclined to offer negative opinions on someone making a product that helped manage COVID and financially benefiting from that product, if it; 1) Actually helped solve a problem we face with COVID without doing more harm than good, and 2) Did so in a way that didn’t trample civil liberties with invasive daily tests before allowing someone to leave their house.
- mrfusion 6y ago
  I wonder why we always jump to the China approach of forcing people to do things. Why not use an incentive system instead? You’d need a lot of work to design a good system but for example pay $100 for a positive test and proof that you isolated that day. (For proof of isolation maybe a system texts you at random times and asks for a picture of something in your house. Eg. 10:13am you get a text asking for a picture of a pillow.) Please don’t critique the plan, I’m only offering it as an example of an alternative to having the national guard show up on your doorstep.
  - tim333 6y ago
    You don't really need to pay. At the infectious disease place in Marseille they offered free tests, hundreds lined up to get tested and the the number of infections in community dropped dramatically.
    - mrfusion 6y ago
      Great point. I guess my thinking was to make sure folks could afford to isolate and increase compliance even more.
    - zaroth 6y ago
      I think the key fact here is that tests were offered and people lined up and volunteered to take them. Strict constitutional scrutiny requires that the least disruptive action be taken to obtain the desired effect. I think no would could possibly argue that widespread free testing would be a bad thing. It’s when it becomes mandatory that it becomes not only wrong, but unconstitutional.
- tim333 6y ago
  Odd objections. We test people already with infrared thermometers but they miss many cases. This would be similar but work better.
rytill 6y ago
Thanks for the link! A useful ethical-social concept with examples.

zaroth 6y ago

I’d be less inclined to offer negative opinions on someone making a product that helped manage COVID and financially benefiting from that product, if it; 1) Actually helped solve a problem we face with COVID without doing more harm than good, and 2) Did so in a way that didn’t trample civil liberties with invasive daily tests before allowing someone to leave their house.

mrfusion 6y ago
I wonder why we always jump to the China approach of forcing people to do things. Why not use an incentive system instead? You’d need a lot of work to design a good system but for example pay $100 for a positive test and proof that you isolated that day. (For proof of isolation maybe a system texts you at random times and asks for a picture of something in your house. Eg. 10:13am you get a text asking for a picture of a pillow.) Please don’t critique the plan, I’m only offering it as an example of an alternative to having the national guard show up on your doorstep.
- tim333 6y ago
  You don't really need to pay. At the infectious disease place in Marseille they offered free tests, hundreds lined up to get tested and the the number of infections in community dropped dramatically.
  - mrfusion 6y ago
    Great point. I guess my thinking was to make sure folks could afford to isolate and increase compliance even more.
  - zaroth 6y ago
    I think the key fact here is that tests were offered and people lined up and volunteered to take them. Strict constitutional scrutiny requires that the least disruptive action be taken to obtain the desired effect. I think no would could possibly argue that widespread free testing would be a bad thing. It’s when it becomes mandatory that it becomes not only wrong, but unconstitutional.
tim333 6y ago
Odd objections. We test people already with infrared thermometers but they miss many cases. This would be similar but work better.

rytill 6y ago

Thanks for the link! A useful ethical-social concept with examples.