7 ms·

If you wanted to, you could use that logic to justify quarantines for as long as influenza and HIV are present in society (they kill people too, and a heavily e

If you wanted to, you could use that logic to justify quarantines for as long as influenza and HIV are present in society (they kill people too, and a heavily enforced quarantine would prevent them from spreading). One has to balance the benefits of slowing the spread of a virus against the costs of policy decisions.

whimsicalism 6y ago
So the typical person who thinks that shutdown is unjustified think that HIV, influenza, and covid are all comparable diseases? Explains a lot.
- frockington1 6y ago
  As a member of the healthy and under 30 demographic, influenza is a more serious threat to my health. I see no reason I shouldn't treat influenza as a more serious risk
  - kazagistar 6y ago
    Because there is more to moral choices then self interest.
  - whimsicalism 6y ago
    That's not even true, although you're right that the risk of both are extremely low for our age group. Do you think the lives and health of others have no impact on your decision making? If so, you might be interested to learn that drunk drivers actually have a higher rate of survival than people who walk home drunk from the bar. Never mind those pesky pedestrians you might hit, drunk driving is the safest option for the driver!
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
    Will you feel the same when you are unable to receive life saving care because health care resources are tied up dealing with the flood of COVID victims?
  - watwut 6y ago
    Influenza has lower mortality rates for under 30 demographic. Just as with covid, young people die less then old people or sick people.
- InitialLastName 6y ago
  FWIW, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that how justifiable a policy decision like quarantine is depends on how sensitive the decisionmaker is to a cost-benefit analysis. Both the extent of social distancing mandates and the severity, spread rate and deadliness of viruses exist on fluctuating scales, and reasonable people can disagree on where the appropriate intersection of the two sits without having to accuse them of ignoring either science or economics.
  - whimsicalism 6y ago
    It is true that there are people ignoring science/economics on both sides. That said, there are more people on the "no lockdown" side that I've seen blatantly pushing misinformation/ignoring facts. Of course, that doesn't mean that the "no lockdown" side is wrong.
- rhino369 6y ago
  HIV was much more deadly for certain groups (IV drug users and homosexual men) during the late 80's through early 90's than COVID is to the general public. 10% of self-identifying gay men in America born in the baby boomer generation died from AIDS by 1995. Nobody locked them in their houses for 6 months. HIV treatments were a miracle that saved a lot of lives.
  - whimsicalism 6y ago
    Crazy. And IV users and gay men could get it just by going to an enclosed indoor space? Are you locked in your house?
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > 10% of self-identifying gay men in America born in the baby boomer generation died from AIDS by 1995. Nobody locked them in their houses for 6 months. The government policy response for most of the first decade the AIDS epidemic was known about was “do nothing, it's just killing undesirables we'd like to eliminate, anyway”, so it's kind of a weird model to hold up for emulation. But (1) HIV isn't a respiratory virus, so taking the kind of precautions that apply to a respiratory virus wouldn't make any sense; (2) prevrnting the spread of the epidemic outside of the undesirable groups was used as a pretext for the Justice Department permitting employers to fire people for having AIDS, and was part of the overt pretext in a number of new adopted (and more proposed) laws across the US extending discrimination against and exclusion of homosexuals.

whimsicalism 6y ago

So the typical person who thinks that shutdown is unjustified think that HIV, influenza, and covid are all comparable diseases? Explains a lot.

frockington1 6y ago
As a member of the healthy and under 30 demographic, influenza is a more serious threat to my health. I see no reason I shouldn't treat influenza as a more serious risk
- kazagistar 6y ago
  Because there is more to moral choices then self interest.
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  That's not even true, although you're right that the risk of both are extremely low for our age group. Do you think the lives and health of others have no impact on your decision making? If so, you might be interested to learn that drunk drivers actually have a higher rate of survival than people who walk home drunk from the bar. Never mind those pesky pedestrians you might hit, drunk driving is the safest option for the driver!
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
  Will you feel the same when you are unable to receive life saving care because health care resources are tied up dealing with the flood of COVID victims?
- watwut 6y ago
  Influenza has lower mortality rates for under 30 demographic. Just as with covid, young people die less then old people or sick people.
InitialLastName 6y ago
FWIW, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that how justifiable a policy decision like quarantine is depends on how sensitive the decisionmaker is to a cost-benefit analysis. Both the extent of social distancing mandates and the severity, spread rate and deadliness of viruses exist on fluctuating scales, and reasonable people can disagree on where the appropriate intersection of the two sits without having to accuse them of ignoring either science or economics.
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  It is true that there are people ignoring science/economics on both sides. That said, there are more people on the "no lockdown" side that I've seen blatantly pushing misinformation/ignoring facts. Of course, that doesn't mean that the "no lockdown" side is wrong.
rhino369 6y ago
HIV was much more deadly for certain groups (IV drug users and homosexual men) during the late 80's through early 90's than COVID is to the general public. 10% of self-identifying gay men in America born in the baby boomer generation died from AIDS by 1995. Nobody locked them in their houses for 6 months. HIV treatments were a miracle that saved a lot of lives.
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  Crazy. And IV users and gay men could get it just by going to an enclosed indoor space? Are you locked in your house?
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > 10% of self-identifying gay men in America born in the baby boomer generation died from AIDS by 1995. Nobody locked them in their houses for 6 months. The government policy response for most of the first decade the AIDS epidemic was known about was “do nothing, it's just killing undesirables we'd like to eliminate, anyway”, so it's kind of a weird model to hold up for emulation. But (1) HIV isn't a respiratory virus, so taking the kind of precautions that apply to a respiratory virus wouldn't make any sense; (2) prevrnting the spread of the epidemic outside of the undesirable groups was used as a pretext for the Justice Department permitting employers to fire people for having AIDS, and was part of the overt pretext in a number of new adopted (and more proposed) laws across the US extending discrimination against and exclusion of homosexuals.