3 ms·

Right, but the people who went to the bars made that decision despite being aware of the risks. I would much prefer a society that allows people to do dumb thi

Right, but the people who went to the bars made that decision despite being aware of the risks. I would much prefer a society that allows people to do dumb things than a nanny-state that purports to keep us "safe". Living is a risky situation. That's just the way it is. If my 97 year old grandma wants to go have a mimosa and socialize, I think that should be her choice, even considering the risk. We drive on highways, I go outside where mosquitoes carry West-Nile disease, I eat food prepared by someone else at a restaurant, I smoke a cigarette. These are all risk trade-offs that we allow individuals to make their own decision on. Why is _this_ disease, this risk, so different? We're encouraging a sort of generalized agoraphobia - if _you_ don't want to take the risk of going out, then stay home and you'll be perfectly safe. Don't impose that fear on others...

fzeroracer 6y ago
Except we don't allow people to do dumb things when it puts other people at risk. If your grandma decides to go drive after downing a few mimosas she'll be arrested for driving intoxicated. If she decides to go 80mph on a 30 speed limit road she'll be arrested for putting others at risk. And you can't smoke a cigarette anywhere you want because other people don't want your second hand smoke mucking up the area. And this disease much like those is not about you. Arguments you make are inherently selfish because it's about your freedoms but not about the freedoms you take away from others. You are essentially arguing for those that are at risk to remain in permanent lockdown because others can't be bothered to take basic protective measures. You're demanding to take away other people's freedom so you can have marginally more freedom.
- sojournerc 6y ago
  How does going to a bar take away freedom from others? I'm not suggesting "permanent lock-down", rather the opposite - those who are at risk are perfectly capable of managing that risk themselves as they see fit - wear a mask - sanitize hands - avoid people - great! no one's stopping that. There were diseases before this one, and there will be others to follow it. If becoming a vector of transmission is equivalent to "taking away freedom from others" than we'd better never leave home again since we can never know what pathogen might be hiding out there in the world. If I want to expose myself to such vectors, that's my prerogative. My example of my Grandam willingly taking risk to socialize is nothing like outright dangerous behavior that puts others at risk (speeding 80 in a 30). They are not equivalent.
  - fzeroracer 6y ago
    Your argument fails to address my point that when you're willingly exposing yourself like that you're exposing others who had no clue or idea to it as well. Again, you're arguing to take away other people's freedoms because you can't make the token effort to try and reduce spread yourself. Because wearing a mask is about people who are sick taking measures to prevent others from getting sick, not about those who are at risk trying to avoid the virus. Your example of grandma is an equivalent. She's doing something dangerous and then impacting other people around her that have no choice.
    - sojournerc 6y ago
      >when you're willingly exposing yourself like that you're exposing others who had no clue or idea to it as well. How? Others are free (or should be) to associate with me or not. Your assessment of danger is different than mine. I suppose that's the crux of my point.
      - fzeroracer 6y ago
        Because they have no clue whether or not you're sick and if you are, you're taking zero preventative measures to stop others from getting sick? Let's assume you had a non-remote job. Would your coworkers have the freedom to associate with you or not? How about any family you're living with? What about people at any stores you visit? Especially since the coronavirus has a significant lagtime before symptoms appear which means you have no clue whether or not you're actually exposing others until you get sick and work backwards from there. Then if you do end up as being a vector for the coronavirus, the people around you pay the price. Your business has to shut down to prevent the spread of it, people have to self-quarantine because now it's highly likely that they have it too. In the course of your single-minded drive for personal freedoms, you've just caused massive damage to other people and companies and took away their freedoms.
        sojournerc 6y ago
        Quite the hypothetical you got there. You've made a lot of assumptions, like going to a bar guarantees infection. I _do_ take preventative measures when I go out. I wear a mask. I wash my hands. I keep distance as possible. There is little evidence of transmission within stores where people are wearing masks and keeping distance. I have coworkers who are nervous, and I do accommodate them by taking the prescribed precautions. Someone is in contact with me who doesn't know my recent history can wear a mask, and can keep their distance. They have every freedom in that regard, yet I don't have freedom to sit with a friend at a bar? You should be aware that asymptomatic spread is likely not very common: https://time.com/5850256/who-asymptomatic-spread/ https://time.com/5850256/who-asymptomatic-spread/ > The highest estimate was a transmission rate of 2.2%, suggesting “asymptomatic spread is unlikely to be a major driver of clusters or community transmission of infection.” It's good to be aware of _high-risk_ situations - such as shouting in a mob (you assume Texas spike was due to bars opening). You've yet to address my point... We all take risks every day. What's your goal? to keep everyone perfectly safe all the time? Padded rooms for everyone!

fzeroracer 6y ago

Except we don't allow people to do dumb things when it puts other people at risk. If your grandma decides to go drive after downing a few mimosas she'll be arrested for driving intoxicated. If she decides to go 80mph on a 30 speed limit road she'll be arrested for putting others at risk. And you can't smoke a cigarette anywhere you want because other people don't want your second hand smoke mucking up the area. And this disease much like those is not about you. Arguments you make are inherently selfish because it's about your freedoms but not about the freedoms you take away from others. You are essentially arguing for those that are at risk to remain in permanent lockdown because others can't be bothered to take basic protective measures. You're demanding to take away other people's freedom so you can have marginally more freedom.

sojournerc 6y ago
How does going to a bar take away freedom from others? I'm not suggesting "permanent lock-down", rather the opposite - those who are at risk are perfectly capable of managing that risk themselves as they see fit - wear a mask - sanitize hands - avoid people - great! no one's stopping that. There were diseases before this one, and there will be others to follow it. If becoming a vector of transmission is equivalent to "taking away freedom from others" than we'd better never leave home again since we can never know what pathogen might be hiding out there in the world. If I want to expose myself to such vectors, that's my prerogative. My example of my Grandam willingly taking risk to socialize is nothing like outright dangerous behavior that puts others at risk (speeding 80 in a 30). They are not equivalent.
- fzeroracer 6y ago
  Your argument fails to address my point that when you're willingly exposing yourself like that you're exposing others who had no clue or idea to it as well. Again, you're arguing to take away other people's freedoms because you can't make the token effort to try and reduce spread yourself. Because wearing a mask is about people who are sick taking measures to prevent others from getting sick, not about those who are at risk trying to avoid the virus. Your example of grandma is an equivalent. She's doing something dangerous and then impacting other people around her that have no choice.
  - sojournerc 6y ago
    >when you're willingly exposing yourself like that you're exposing others who had no clue or idea to it as well. How? Others are free (or should be) to associate with me or not. Your assessment of danger is different than mine. I suppose that's the crux of my point.
    - fzeroracer 6y ago
      Because they have no clue whether or not you're sick and if you are, you're taking zero preventative measures to stop others from getting sick? Let's assume you had a non-remote job. Would your coworkers have the freedom to associate with you or not? How about any family you're living with? What about people at any stores you visit? Especially since the coronavirus has a significant lagtime before symptoms appear which means you have no clue whether or not you're actually exposing others until you get sick and work backwards from there. Then if you do end up as being a vector for the coronavirus, the people around you pay the price. Your business has to shut down to prevent the spread of it, people have to self-quarantine because now it's highly likely that they have it too. In the course of your single-minded drive for personal freedoms, you've just caused massive damage to other people and companies and took away their freedoms.
      - sojournerc 6y ago
        Quite the hypothetical you got there. You've made a lot of assumptions, like going to a bar guarantees infection. I _do_ take preventative measures when I go out. I wear a mask. I wash my hands. I keep distance as possible. There is little evidence of transmission within stores where people are wearing masks and keeping distance. I have coworkers who are nervous, and I do accommodate them by taking the prescribed precautions. Someone is in contact with me who doesn't know my recent history can wear a mask, and can keep their distance. They have every freedom in that regard, yet I don't have freedom to sit with a friend at a bar? You should be aware that asymptomatic spread is likely not very common: https://time.com/5850256/who-asymptomatic-spread/ https://time.com/5850256/who-asymptomatic-spread/ > The highest estimate was a transmission rate of 2.2%, suggesting “asymptomatic spread is unlikely to be a major driver of clusters or community transmission of infection.” It's good to be aware of _high-risk_ situations - such as shouting in a mob (you assume Texas spike was due to bars opening). You've yet to address my point... We all take risks every day. What's your goal? to keep everyone perfectly safe all the time? Padded rooms for everyone!