5 ms·

The article quotes someone who believes this is the right thing to do and explains their perspective. This isn't the only view (nor the one endorsed by the phys

The article quotes someone who believes this is the right thing to do and explains their perspective. This isn't the only view (nor the one endorsed by the physicians I know) but it's worth understanding in order to understand the public health trajectory of the next few years: > Steven, a North Paulding student who asked that only his middle name be used, said he felt safe going to school without a mask. Most of the hallways he encountered, he said, were far less crowded than in the one in the photograph. And the virus itself, he said, didn’t seem like “much of a problem” in Paulding County. > “I’ve only known three people to get it, other than the football players, obviously,” Steven said. “If I get it, I get it. I believe that’s what most people in my area's ideology is — if we get it, we get it.” > Steven said he didn’t want to let worries about spreading the virus to his family control his life. > “Most of my family, including my grandparents, think the same as well,” he said. “We just go on about our business and keep it out of our mind.”

beepboopbeep 6y ago
> Ideology
newacct583 6y ago
The problem with that logic, of course[1], is that "if we get it we get it" is a statement of personal risk assumption. It doesn't address the rights of the people you will then infect, who you didn't involve in the decision. Some of those people don't want to get sick! Realistically, some of them are going to die. [1] Well, in addition to "Football player cases don't count" -- no idea what that's about. Was there a specific outbreak in that county on a team? === Edit to add a grand-response to this comment (because HN's rate limiter has kicked in, sigh) that illustrates exactly the problem with reasoning I'm trying to point out: > this logic [...] assumes somebody has a right to not be infected while in a public area. It absolutely does not. What if some sick kid comes home and unknowingly infects a grandparent who never left the house and never entered a public area? That's a routine kind of spread, in fact. > The responsibility for the risk [...] cannot simply be laid at a different person's feet. No, this is exactly the fallacy at work! There is no "responsibility" in a pandemic. There is no "fault". Those are abstractions dealing with INDIVIDUAL behavior, and we can't beat this with individual decisions, at all.
- ISL 6y ago
  Yes. See the original linked article.
- whatthesmack 6y ago
  The problem with this logic, of course, is that it assumes somebody has a right to not be infected while in a public area. That "somebody" is also in a public area, so the risk is entirely by their own choice. They don't know who could be infected, but they're out in public anyways. The responsibility for the risk that "somebody" undertakes cannot simply be laid at a different person's feet.
  - zentiggr 6y ago
    The flip side of that argument plays out, at its worst, in what gets charged as 'negligent homicide', or even 'voluntary manslaughter'. If you can take reasonable precautions that barely inconvenience you, but could easily prevent potentially fatal infections, what does it say about your morality that you choose not to? It's a choice between doing small things that can easily benefit many more people than yourself, or deliberately choosing to risk others' health just "because".
    - DuskStar 6y ago
      If knowingly + intentionally spreading HIV isn't a felony (thanks, California [0]) why should not fully minimizing the risk of personally contracting and then spreading COVID be one? ("mandate condoms during anal sex to reduce the spread of HIV" is actually pretty comparable to "mandate masks when outside to reduce the spread of COVID", incidentally) Not to say it's a good thing to do, but that doesn't mean it reaches the level of "crime". 0: https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/07/health/california-hiv-bill-signed/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/07/health/california-hiv-bill-si...
      - zentiggr 6y ago
        I meant to say something closer to 'should rise to the level of', I didn't mean to imply that it is a crime now. I didn't know that about the California law... but I understand that treatment is much more effective so I can see why it's no longer at a felony level. How about those not wearing masks or at least maintaining minimum recommended behavior to minimize transmission get a 'reckless endangerment' and/or 'child endangerment' instead, not quite so Heavy Felony but still a solid signal to others that NOT helping to stop the spread of this is morally incorrect. Edit: to more closely convey my understanding of the CA bill changes.

beepboopbeep 6y ago

> Ideology

newacct583 6y ago

The problem with that logic, of course[1], is that "if we get it we get it" is a statement of personal risk assumption. It doesn't address the rights of the people you will then infect, who you didn't involve in the decision. Some of those people don't want to get sick! Realistically, some of them are going to die. [1] Well, in addition to "Football player cases don't count" -- no idea what that's about. Was there a specific outbreak in that county on a team? === Edit to add a grand-response to this comment (because HN's rate limiter has kicked in, sigh) that illustrates exactly the problem with reasoning I'm trying to point out: > this logic [...] assumes somebody has a right to not be infected while in a public area. It absolutely does not. What if some sick kid comes home and unknowingly infects a grandparent who never left the house and never entered a public area? That's a routine kind of spread, in fact. > The responsibility for the risk [...] cannot simply be laid at a different person's feet. No, this is exactly the fallacy at work! There is no "responsibility" in a pandemic. There is no "fault". Those are abstractions dealing with INDIVIDUAL behavior, and we can't beat this with individual decisions, at all.

ISL 6y ago
Yes. See the original linked article.
whatthesmack 6y ago
The problem with this logic, of course, is that it assumes somebody has a right to not be infected while in a public area. That "somebody" is also in a public area, so the risk is entirely by their own choice. They don't know who could be infected, but they're out in public anyways. The responsibility for the risk that "somebody" undertakes cannot simply be laid at a different person's feet.
- zentiggr 6y ago
  The flip side of that argument plays out, at its worst, in what gets charged as 'negligent homicide', or even 'voluntary manslaughter'. If you can take reasonable precautions that barely inconvenience you, but could easily prevent potentially fatal infections, what does it say about your morality that you choose not to? It's a choice between doing small things that can easily benefit many more people than yourself, or deliberately choosing to risk others' health just "because".
  - DuskStar 6y ago
    If knowingly + intentionally spreading HIV isn't a felony (thanks, California [0]) why should not fully minimizing the risk of personally contracting and then spreading COVID be one? ("mandate condoms during anal sex to reduce the spread of HIV" is actually pretty comparable to "mandate masks when outside to reduce the spread of COVID", incidentally) Not to say it's a good thing to do, but that doesn't mean it reaches the level of "crime". 0: https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/07/health/california-hiv-bill-signed/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/07/health/california-hiv-bill-si...
    - zentiggr 6y ago
      I meant to say something closer to 'should rise to the level of', I didn't mean to imply that it is a crime now. I didn't know that about the California law... but I understand that treatment is much more effective so I can see why it's no longer at a felony level. How about those not wearing masks or at least maintaining minimum recommended behavior to minimize transmission get a 'reckless endangerment' and/or 'child endangerment' instead, not quite so Heavy Felony but still a solid signal to others that NOT helping to stop the spread of this is morally incorrect. Edit: to more closely convey my understanding of the CA bill changes.