5 ms·

I'm resigned to the fact that our leaders are fools, living in intellectual bubble candy-lands, totally unaware of human nature. The article presents neat, phi

by jariel 6y ago

I'm resigned to the fact that our leaders are fools, living in intellectual bubble candy-lands, totally unaware of human nature. The article presents neat, philosophical arguments. But the real reason we can't have 'immunity passports' is that large swaths of young people will be swarming to get infected on purpose. Massive numbers of people will either think 'there is no risk' or 'are willing to take the risk' or 'feel the need to take the risk' (i.e. for income). Bragging about their 'freedom passports' on Instagram, egging others on. I can see low-grade Instagram celebs doing 'team infections' on social media, going into a house together and getting infected. I can see poorly raised teens making pacts. Semi lawless young people just going out and getting it. Other young people taking bad cues for influencers. Think of the problems FB and YouTube will have. Will they have to censor anyone promoting 'getting infected'? The mere thought of 'immunity passports' is DOA for that reason alone, and of all the articles I've seen on the subject, they've never bothered to address this most obvious issue.

paganel 6y ago
I personally find it highly immoral to remove the rights of some people only for not having had a disease, this is very, very close to eugenics in my book.
- jariel 6y ago
  "This is very, very close to eugenics in my book." First, it's nothing like eugenics at all. It's not the policy that is degrading your situations, it's the disease. The policy is just an official recognition of the situation. If you have a disease like AIDS, you cannot go around knowingly affecting people. We already have public policy in place for similar such things. 'COVID Passports' are just a mechanical effectuation of policies we already put in place. Yes, it comes along with ethnical questions, but if it were not for people racing to get themselves infected, it would be pragmatic. Consider your 'concern for your rights' for a moment wherein the entire world on 'lockdown'. People literally locked in their homes working out 'prisoner's dilemmas'. 30 Million people have been rendered unemployed, many businesses have been shut down and people are bankrupt. What about their rights? Or forget 'rights' - what about their livelihoods and the destruction of their savings, homes etc.? It's more of a pragmatic concern than a moral issue.
  - paganel 6y ago
    > it's the disease. It's not the disease, as in the suggested solutions will actually restrict the rights of people who haven't got the disease. Not that people who are sick deserve to have their rights curtailed, see below. > If you have a disease like AIDS, you cannot go around knowingly affecting people. This sounds so, so wrong. I believe that thinking similar to this generated the terrible situation and ostracisation that people who got AIDS in the late '80s had to face. > rights' for a moment wherein the entire world on 'lockdown'. The entire world is not on "lockdown" anymore. I live in a country who is slowly exiting one (after 2+ months), as does most of Europe, and even though we have never been the bastion of democracy we have managed to do it without resorting to the ostracisation of people.
dguest 6y ago
This is the gist of the last reason they list in the article. ("Threats to public health.") But yes, to me it's weird that it's not the first. People dislike following lockdown rules already, imagine if we start rewarding their lack of caution with never having to follow the rules again.
Animats 6y ago
Since very few people under 25 die of this, that's probably OK. And then we have a workforce. This is actually an argument for giant 3-week rave parties in isolated areas. Everybody gets tested on the way out. Ones with antibodies and no virus get a passport. Then they get job offers. Extreme, but better than the current "open, stay open, and keep dying" plan.
- jariel 6y ago
  "Since very few people under 25 die of this, that's probably OK. And then we have a workforce." Wow - absolutely not - the notion of people - anyone - purposely infecting themselves with a deadly disease that actually does kill quite a number of people - is absurd. The notion that the government may indirectly encourage it is very irresponsible. This is aside from even the fact that quite a lot of those people will still need hospitalization, and of course, they become carriers and will infect others. A 'wave of young people getting infected' would cause the hospitals to spike again, get more healthcare workers and 'all the other people' in the hospitals infected as well. We're going to have to aggressively socially distance and change a lot of our habits for the next 18 months or so as vaccines, cures, therapies etc. are developed - all of these things combine to bring R0R/R1 the numbers down.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    We won't be able to aggressively socially distance for the next 18 months, whether or not we have to.
  - darawk 6y ago
    > Wow - absolutely not - the notion of people - anyone - purposely infecting themselves with a deadly disease that actually does kill quite a number of people - is absurd. It kills almost nobody under 25. It's an extremely low risk for that group.

by jariel 6y ago

paganel 6y ago

I personally find it highly immoral to remove the rights of some people only for not having had a disease, this is very, very close to eugenics in my book.

jariel 6y ago
"This is very, very close to eugenics in my book." First, it's nothing like eugenics at all. It's not the policy that is degrading your situations, it's the disease. The policy is just an official recognition of the situation. If you have a disease like AIDS, you cannot go around knowingly affecting people. We already have public policy in place for similar such things. 'COVID Passports' are just a mechanical effectuation of policies we already put in place. Yes, it comes along with ethnical questions, but if it were not for people racing to get themselves infected, it would be pragmatic. Consider your 'concern for your rights' for a moment wherein the entire world on 'lockdown'. People literally locked in their homes working out 'prisoner's dilemmas'. 30 Million people have been rendered unemployed, many businesses have been shut down and people are bankrupt. What about their rights? Or forget 'rights' - what about their livelihoods and the destruction of their savings, homes etc.? It's more of a pragmatic concern than a moral issue.
- paganel 6y ago
  > it's the disease. It's not the disease, as in the suggested solutions will actually restrict the rights of people who haven't got the disease. Not that people who are sick deserve to have their rights curtailed, see below. > If you have a disease like AIDS, you cannot go around knowingly affecting people. This sounds so, so wrong. I believe that thinking similar to this generated the terrible situation and ostracisation that people who got AIDS in the late '80s had to face. > rights' for a moment wherein the entire world on 'lockdown'. The entire world is not on "lockdown" anymore. I live in a country who is slowly exiting one (after 2+ months), as does most of Europe, and even though we have never been the bastion of democracy we have managed to do it without resorting to the ostracisation of people.

dguest 6y ago

This is the gist of the last reason they list in the article. ("Threats to public health.") But yes, to me it's weird that it's not the first. People dislike following lockdown rules already, imagine if we start rewarding their lack of caution with never having to follow the rules again.

Animats 6y ago

Since very few people under 25 die of this, that's probably OK. And then we have a workforce. This is actually an argument for giant 3-week rave parties in isolated areas. Everybody gets tested on the way out. Ones with antibodies and no virus get a passport. Then they get job offers. Extreme, but better than the current "open, stay open, and keep dying" plan.

jariel 6y ago
"Since very few people under 25 die of this, that's probably OK. And then we have a workforce." Wow - absolutely not - the notion of people - anyone - purposely infecting themselves with a deadly disease that actually does kill quite a number of people - is absurd. The notion that the government may indirectly encourage it is very irresponsible. This is aside from even the fact that quite a lot of those people will still need hospitalization, and of course, they become carriers and will infect others. A 'wave of young people getting infected' would cause the hospitals to spike again, get more healthcare workers and 'all the other people' in the hospitals infected as well. We're going to have to aggressively socially distance and change a lot of our habits for the next 18 months or so as vaccines, cures, therapies etc. are developed - all of these things combine to bring R0R/R1 the numbers down.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  We won't be able to aggressively socially distance for the next 18 months, whether or not we have to.
- darawk 6y ago
  > Wow - absolutely not - the notion of people - anyone - purposely infecting themselves with a deadly disease that actually does kill quite a number of people - is absurd. It kills almost nobody under 25. It's an extremely low risk for that group.