4 ms·

This is extremely egoistic post. You, a single individual, can infect tens of persons, without even knowing it, who spread the disease further, and of whom some

by zvrba 6y ago

This is extremely egoistic post. You, a single individual, can infect tens of persons, without even knowing it, who spread the disease further, and of whom someone will die. Is satisfying your heartache worth starting a chain of deaths? The more people feel like they're a special-case snowflakes who should be exempt from travelling restrictions, the longer this situation is going to last.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
The situation is going to last a long time regardless of what people feel like. Countries that want to suppress the coronavirus will need to keep substantial travel restrictions in place for years, so it's time to think about what the shape of a sustainable policy is. "Nobody go anywhere cause the virus might spread" isn't going to work for that long.
anoncake 6y ago
There's so much bullshit in this post. Even without any precautions, the average person would not nearly infect "tens of person". To actually cause the death of one, they would have to infect on average ~200 people. And the egoists here are those that want everyone to suffer just so they can avoid a miniscule chance of death. And the faster the virus spreads, the faster we are done with this bullshit.
- gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
  Amen. The moral superiority is insane. Berate and strip them of any ounce of humanity, anyone who dares to even suggest that indefinite draconian measures are unsustainable or possibly ineffective.
arp242 6y ago
I feel this is rather unempathic towards the previous poster. Human contact – affection and love in particular – are primary human needs, and they can't just be handwaved away. You may be reasonably comfortable in your situation (as much as this entire situation gets, anyway) but not everyone is so lucky. This is not "special-case snowflakes", just a recognition that people, their circumstances, and experiences greatly differ. I'd argue that almost everyone gets treated "special" at some points in their lives and rightfully so. Always treating everyone the same is deeply misguided as people are simply not the same (equality shouldn't mean "one size fits all for everyone"). Merely travelling wouldn't cause a "chain of deaths", when done with with appropriate precautions and care. That's an extremely wild and panicked exaggeration, and not based on what we know. Besides, I'm not entirely sure what you're exactly proposing to achieve with your "hard lockdown"; it's already well established that the virus is impossible to contain, and in many ways a "hard lockdown" will make it worse. There needs to be some balance.
- NamTaf 6y ago
  I don't disagree with you that human contact is important for a great deal many of people. However, cynically speaking, death and debilitating, potentially long-lasting illness from Covid also can't be hand-waved away. It's an issue of balancing the needs of the many against the needs of the few, and unfortuantely in this instance the actions of individuals can cause incredibly amplified levels of suffering for a great many people. There's countless examples of people all over the world not taking appropriate precautions and care when dealing with Covid. I think it's pretty obvious that you cannot trust everyone to do the right thing, and indeed there's enough people not doing the right thing for it to cause major problems. Additionally, note that the current outbreak in Melbourne - 12500 cases, and 175 deaths (and counting) - can be traced back to a handful (i.e. 1-3) initial outbreaks due to lapses in quarantine protocols. It is absolutely, demonstrably true that individuals can cause a 'chain of deaths'. Individaul leaked cases through a lockdown can cause an explosion of cases to spiral out of control if allowed to get any traction. I would not call that wild or panicked exaggeration at all, and is most definitely based on what we know. Lastly, it's very obviously false to claim that a hard lockdown cannot help, see New Zealand as a shining counter-example. Extremely aggressive lockdowns and widespread testing can indeed control it.
  - arp242 6y ago
    > it is absolutely, demonstrably true that individuals can cause a 'chain of deaths' "Can" is not the same as "will". I already said "when done with with appropriate precautions and care" in my previous comment. The thing is, just because there are some Oz bogans returning from their coma drinking holiday in Bali acted in an idiotic fashion doesn't mean we should prevent everyone else on the planet from travelling at all, no matter the personal circumstances. Lockdowns also cause real harm, see e.g. [1], although the full effects won't be known for certain with time. "There's enough people not doing the right thing for it to cause major problems" with many things: cars, guns, knives, etc. It's always a matter of balancing different interests and trade-offs. > Lastly, it's very obviously false to claim that a hard lockdown cannot help, see New Zealand as a shining counter-example. Extremely aggressive lockdowns and widespread testing can indeed control it. That's not exactly that I said either. What is your long-term plan with this? Institute a draconic hard lockdown every time there is a single case? It doesn't seem that any of this is just going to disappear from the world any time soon, if ever. It's not a solution, just a stop-gap measure (which is what people have been saying pretty much from the get-go). The real question is what will happen in 6 months, a year, or 2 years time with New Zealand. Remember, we've managed to eradicate exactly one disease in the history of humanity, and that was a far more serious one, although we've been close with Polio for years. New Zealand had great success in the short term (being a fairly sparsely populated island more than 3 hours removed from any other significant landmass probably helped with that), but you can't lock everyone indoors every time there is a new case and it's almost certain this will happen unless NZ commits to a long-term multi-year border lockdown. [1]: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/2764584 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/...
bartvk 6y ago
The desire to be with your life partner, that's something I wouldn't put in the "extremely egoistic" category.

by zvrba 6y ago

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago

The situation is going to last a long time regardless of what people feel like. Countries that want to suppress the coronavirus will need to keep substantial travel restrictions in place for years, so it's time to think about what the shape of a sustainable policy is. "Nobody go anywhere cause the virus might spread" isn't going to work for that long.

anoncake 6y ago

There's so much bullshit in this post. Even without any precautions, the average person would not nearly infect "tens of person". To actually cause the death of one, they would have to infect on average ~200 people. And the egoists here are those that want everyone to suffer just so they can avoid a miniscule chance of death. And the faster the virus spreads, the faster we are done with this bullshit.

gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
Amen. The moral superiority is insane. Berate and strip them of any ounce of humanity, anyone who dares to even suggest that indefinite draconian measures are unsustainable or possibly ineffective.

arp242 6y ago

I feel this is rather unempathic towards the previous poster. Human contact – affection and love in particular – are primary human needs, and they can't just be handwaved away. You may be reasonably comfortable in your situation (as much as this entire situation gets, anyway) but not everyone is so lucky. This is not "special-case snowflakes", just a recognition that people, their circumstances, and experiences greatly differ. I'd argue that almost everyone gets treated "special" at some points in their lives and rightfully so. Always treating everyone the same is deeply misguided as people are simply not the same (equality shouldn't mean "one size fits all for everyone"). Merely travelling wouldn't cause a "chain of deaths", when done with with appropriate precautions and care. That's an extremely wild and panicked exaggeration, and not based on what we know. Besides, I'm not entirely sure what you're exactly proposing to achieve with your "hard lockdown"; it's already well established that the virus is impossible to contain, and in many ways a "hard lockdown" will make it worse. There needs to be some balance.

NamTaf 6y ago
I don't disagree with you that human contact is important for a great deal many of people. However, cynically speaking, death and debilitating, potentially long-lasting illness from Covid also can't be hand-waved away. It's an issue of balancing the needs of the many against the needs of the few, and unfortuantely in this instance the actions of individuals can cause incredibly amplified levels of suffering for a great many people. There's countless examples of people all over the world not taking appropriate precautions and care when dealing with Covid. I think it's pretty obvious that you cannot trust everyone to do the right thing, and indeed there's enough people not doing the right thing for it to cause major problems. Additionally, note that the current outbreak in Melbourne - 12500 cases, and 175 deaths (and counting) - can be traced back to a handful (i.e. 1-3) initial outbreaks due to lapses in quarantine protocols. It is absolutely, demonstrably true that individuals can cause a 'chain of deaths'. Individaul leaked cases through a lockdown can cause an explosion of cases to spiral out of control if allowed to get any traction. I would not call that wild or panicked exaggeration at all, and is most definitely based on what we know. Lastly, it's very obviously false to claim that a hard lockdown cannot help, see New Zealand as a shining counter-example. Extremely aggressive lockdowns and widespread testing can indeed control it.
- arp242 6y ago
  > it is absolutely, demonstrably true that individuals can cause a 'chain of deaths' "Can" is not the same as "will". I already said "when done with with appropriate precautions and care" in my previous comment. The thing is, just because there are some Oz bogans returning from their coma drinking holiday in Bali acted in an idiotic fashion doesn't mean we should prevent everyone else on the planet from travelling at all, no matter the personal circumstances. Lockdowns also cause real harm, see e.g. [1], although the full effects won't be known for certain with time. "There's enough people not doing the right thing for it to cause major problems" with many things: cars, guns, knives, etc. It's always a matter of balancing different interests and trade-offs. > Lastly, it's very obviously false to claim that a hard lockdown cannot help, see New Zealand as a shining counter-example. Extremely aggressive lockdowns and widespread testing can indeed control it. That's not exactly that I said either. What is your long-term plan with this? Institute a draconic hard lockdown every time there is a single case? It doesn't seem that any of this is just going to disappear from the world any time soon, if ever. It's not a solution, just a stop-gap measure (which is what people have been saying pretty much from the get-go). The real question is what will happen in 6 months, a year, or 2 years time with New Zealand. Remember, we've managed to eradicate exactly one disease in the history of humanity, and that was a far more serious one, although we've been close with Polio for years. New Zealand had great success in the short term (being a fairly sparsely populated island more than 3 hours removed from any other significant landmass probably helped with that), but you can't lock everyone indoors every time there is a new case and it's almost certain this will happen unless NZ commits to a long-term multi-year border lockdown. [1]: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/2764584 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/...

bartvk 6y ago

The desire to be with your life partner, that's something I wouldn't put in the "extremely egoistic" category.