3 ms·

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 capa

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
        > 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). It seems you're incorrectly assuming that protesting was the reason behind the spike in infections. The reality is that we've seen multiple studies come out now [1] [2] [3] which indicate that outdoor spread of the coronavirus is much harder than indoors. You can stop spreading that lie, because all evidence points towards our attempt to rapidly reopen and people packing into enclosed locations. > What's your goal? to keep everyone perfectly safe all the time? Padded rooms for everyone! My goal was to dismantle your terrible arguments because it's the same tired nonsense of 'we all take risks every day' and 'we need to reopen the economy'. By your own argument we should remove speed limits, remove laws against drunk driving and anything of the sort because we're all taking inherent risks by being on the road and it doesn't make sense to to keep people safe. [1] https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/494348-new-study-finds-few-cases-of-outdoor-transmission-of-coronavirus-in-china https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/494348-new-study-finds... [2] https://apnews.com/a288340b3bd3fbc62e564b3d0adfaa2e https://apnews.com/a288340b3bd3fbc62e564b3d0adfaa2e [3] https://www.nber.org/papers/w27408.pdf https://www.nber.org/papers/w27408.pdf

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
      > 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). It seems you're incorrectly assuming that protesting was the reason behind the spike in infections. The reality is that we've seen multiple studies come out now [1] [2] [3] which indicate that outdoor spread of the coronavirus is much harder than indoors. You can stop spreading that lie, because all evidence points towards our attempt to rapidly reopen and people packing into enclosed locations. > What's your goal? to keep everyone perfectly safe all the time? Padded rooms for everyone! My goal was to dismantle your terrible arguments because it's the same tired nonsense of 'we all take risks every day' and 'we need to reopen the economy'. By your own argument we should remove speed limits, remove laws against drunk driving and anything of the sort because we're all taking inherent risks by being on the road and it doesn't make sense to to keep people safe. [1] https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/494348-new-study-finds-few-cases-of-outdoor-transmission-of-coronavirus-in-china https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/494348-new-study-finds... [2] https://apnews.com/a288340b3bd3fbc62e564b3d0adfaa2e https://apnews.com/a288340b3bd3fbc62e564b3d0adfaa2e [3] https://www.nber.org/papers/w27408.pdf https://www.nber.org/papers/w27408.pdf