4 ms·

Would you be in favor of such "authoritarian" measures if COVID-19 had a 15% fatality rate, affected the young just as much as the old, and three of your extend

Would you be in favor of such "authoritarian" measures if COVID-19 had a 15% fatality rate, affected the young just as much as the old, and three of your extended family members + 20 friends/acquaintances died? If the answer is yes, then our differences lie in the value you place on human life rather than our relative support for "authoritarianism." COVID tracing apps are about as authoritarian as forcing open your neighbor's door and violating his personal sovereignty by saving him from a house fire.

gentleman11 6y ago
Except you don’t know whether the neighbours house isn’t on fire, so you had better go in just in case. And while you are there, take an inventory of everything you find, record the data forever for unknown future purposes, and then never leave. It is not a valid comparison.
- keenmaster 6y ago
  A more precise analogy on my part would have illustrated negative externalities. I am partially reliant on you for my safety. Even if I do everything I can to protect myself and others from the virus, you still put me at risk if you don't do the same. No one will compel you to opt into COVID tracing. You can purchase a non-iOS/Android phone. That would be a reasonable price to pay for forsaking a valuable public safety measure. Moreover, grocery stores and other businesses should be free to require proof that someone has a COVID-tracing device before entering the premises.
  - sfj 6y ago
    > I am partially reliant on you for my safety. Even if I do everything I can to protect myself and others from the virus, you still put me at risk if you don't do the same. People put other people at risk by driving. Heck, a big tree in a public place is a risk due to the potential for falling limbs. Are you against those things, too? This whole argument seems to be about the people who feel vulnerable to the disease having to go to grocery stores to get food. If the government would supply clean food to those people, it would seem that we'd no longer have to metaphorically lock everyone in chains in order to save the few.
    - keenmaster 6y ago
      I am not arguing in favor of further lockdown. I think we should partially relax the lockdown for everyone who is not “at risk,” but with proper mitigations: 1. Obligatory masks (freely provided by the government) 2. Social distancing and limitations on large or dense gatherings. Special policies should be rolled out for each sector (offices, restaurants, etc...) 3. Contact tracing apps 4. Greater testing (not necessarily population-wide, but a lot more than what is currently available) 5. Free delivery of essential goods for the at-risk population, and potentially subsidized delivery for non-essential goods Because of the OP, I was mostly addressing mitigation #3.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> If the answer is yes, then our differences lie in the value you place on human life rather than our relative support for "authoritarianism." Well, it's in the ratio of those two values; which differs could be either or both.

gentleman11 6y ago

Except you don’t know whether the neighbours house isn’t on fire, so you had better go in just in case. And while you are there, take an inventory of everything you find, record the data forever for unknown future purposes, and then never leave. It is not a valid comparison.

keenmaster 6y ago
A more precise analogy on my part would have illustrated negative externalities. I am partially reliant on you for my safety. Even if I do everything I can to protect myself and others from the virus, you still put me at risk if you don't do the same. No one will compel you to opt into COVID tracing. You can purchase a non-iOS/Android phone. That would be a reasonable price to pay for forsaking a valuable public safety measure. Moreover, grocery stores and other businesses should be free to require proof that someone has a COVID-tracing device before entering the premises.
- sfj 6y ago
  > I am partially reliant on you for my safety. Even if I do everything I can to protect myself and others from the virus, you still put me at risk if you don't do the same. People put other people at risk by driving. Heck, a big tree in a public place is a risk due to the potential for falling limbs. Are you against those things, too? This whole argument seems to be about the people who feel vulnerable to the disease having to go to grocery stores to get food. If the government would supply clean food to those people, it would seem that we'd no longer have to metaphorically lock everyone in chains in order to save the few.
  - keenmaster 6y ago
    I am not arguing in favor of further lockdown. I think we should partially relax the lockdown for everyone who is not “at risk,” but with proper mitigations: 1. Obligatory masks (freely provided by the government) 2. Social distancing and limitations on large or dense gatherings. Special policies should be rolled out for each sector (offices, restaurants, etc...) 3. Contact tracing apps 4. Greater testing (not necessarily population-wide, but a lot more than what is currently available) 5. Free delivery of essential goods for the at-risk population, and potentially subsidized delivery for non-essential goods Because of the OP, I was mostly addressing mitigation #3.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> If the answer is yes, then our differences lie in the value you place on human life rather than our relative support for "authoritarianism." Well, it's in the ratio of those two values; which differs could be either or both.