4 ms·

> Sorry, your wishes are secondary here. But they're not in this case because you can't force someone to take the test. I don't like this attitude from the gov

> Sorry, your wishes are secondary here. But they're not in this case because you can't force someone to take the test. I don't like this attitude from the government that people can't be trusted to be responsible adults. Same as when Fauci lied about masks to save them for healthcare workers. Let people have anonymous tests if they want, and make sure there's financial and community support for them if they do test positive, but they don't need to phone home. I'm probably visiting family for Christmas. I'm being cautious in the weeks leading up to it, but am I getting a test? No, and only because they're too hard to get. I'm not sitting in a drive-thru line for an hour for one, not even going out of my way for one. The at-home version is what I want, but I'd like to think I can be trusted to do the right thing with the results.

JumpCrisscross 6y ago
> this attitude from the government that people can't be trusted to be responsible adults Have we been in the same country these past months? In 1918, several American cities jailed people breaking quarantine or otherwise putting public health at risk. There has been zero such enforcement this time around. Public health powers are old, precedented and powerful. They are barely being used here. I would support anonymizing the reporting. But requiring some kind of reporting is reasonable given the circumstances. There are too many people who would test positive and hide it, and that's a public health risk.
- nitrogen 6y ago
  Those who would test positive and hide it are also those who would just not get tested in the first place. The only difference is they would know, so they might change their behavior.
- zaroth 6y ago
  > There has been zero such enforcement this time around. Totally false. > Public health powers are old, precedented and powerful. They are barely being used here. Barely? Barely?! Trillions of dollars of economic damages. Millions of lives will be lost due to the prioritization of the COVID over all else. My children can’t go to school. Barely. I can’t even. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/07/31/florida-couple-arrested-jailed-breaking-covid-19-quarantine-order/5553285002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/07/31/florid...
  - wwweston 6y ago
    > Barely? Barely?! The fact that you're linking to news coverage featuring numbers in the... dozens makes it seem like "barely" is justifiable in the context of populations of millions. (It's certainly arguable that outside distanced activities shouldn't be the front lines of enforcement, but once you're infected you really are a risk to not even just any individual you happen by but anyone down the chain of infection.) > Trillions of dollars of economic damages. And if you assume that the damages came primarily from civil actions, then I guess that'd make sense. The reality is that there was never an option to avoid economic damages once the epidemic was uncontained. The bulk of the impacts come from the threat of the illness itself. Where most people are avoiding economic and social activities, it's not because they're forced into it, it's because they regard the personal or social risk to be significant. Lift all restrictions and only some margin of people will dive back in and even many of those will do so selectively. The major thing that civil actions do is coordinate the possibility of effective healthy mitigations. > Millions of lives will be lost due to the prioritization of the COVID over all else. Probably not from economic impacts: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090928172530.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090928172530.h... https://www.history.com/news/great-depression-economy-life-expectancy https://www.history.com/news/great-depression-economy-life-e... It is true that severe covid cases take up a lot of resources in the medical system and that could cost lives, but that's an argument for mitigating measures. > My children can’t go to school. I might be persuaded based on enough further commentary that it's crucial that your children get influences forming their critical thinking skills from outside the home, but I certainly wouldn't assume it on the basis of a single comment.
    - zaroth 6y ago
      The goalposts just moved so far we’re not even on the same field. >> In 1918, several American cities jailed people breaking quarantine or otherwise putting public health at risk. And in 2020, several American cities did exactly the same. The link was my citation. Aside from millions of dollars in fines, and hundreds of thousands of small businesses forced shut to the point of financial ruin, yes, people have also been arrested. >> Public health powers are old, precedented and powerful. They are barely being used here. Now, the question wasn’t the necessity of the response, or the appropriateness of the response or even the effectiveness of the response. My incredulity was simply with the characterization of the magnitude of the public health response. The magnitude of the public health response is unprecedentedly and undeniably massive. To say public health powers are barely being applied is wrong, but also unfair to all those who have been directly impacted. Your opinion that people would be fearful enough of COVID that they wouldn’t have gone out anyway is highly speculative, belied by the data, but also besides the point. I think your concluding paragraph is entirely inappropriate and against site guidelines. I suggest you delete it. More so, it’s just in bad taste. Two weeks ago an 11 year old shot themselves on a Zoom call. It’s just one of the most grievous examples of the mental health impact of school shutdowns, but the overall mental health of school age children has been broadly effected.
reissbaker 6y ago
If you can be trusted to do the right thing — that is, report a positive result to relevant health authorities so they can do contact tracing, and self-quarantine for the duration of your illness — then having it automatically reported for you is a useful convenience. If you can't be trusted to do the right thing — that is, if you're not going to report your positive test result — then automatic reporting is useful for society to handle that case, too. I'm generally against mass data collection, especially from the government. But not in this case. Hiding a positive result is ethically indefensible. Even if you're feeling fine, interacting with you while you're positive may be a death sentence for others.

JumpCrisscross 6y ago

> this attitude from the government that people can't be trusted to be responsible adults Have we been in the same country these past months? In 1918, several American cities jailed people breaking quarantine or otherwise putting public health at risk. There has been zero such enforcement this time around. Public health powers are old, precedented and powerful. They are barely being used here. I would support anonymizing the reporting. But requiring some kind of reporting is reasonable given the circumstances. There are too many people who would test positive and hide it, and that's a public health risk.

nitrogen 6y ago
Those who would test positive and hide it are also those who would just not get tested in the first place. The only difference is they would know, so they might change their behavior.
zaroth 6y ago
> There has been zero such enforcement this time around. Totally false. > Public health powers are old, precedented and powerful. They are barely being used here. Barely? Barely?! Trillions of dollars of economic damages. Millions of lives will be lost due to the prioritization of the COVID over all else. My children can’t go to school. Barely. I can’t even. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/07/31/florida-couple-arrested-jailed-breaking-covid-19-quarantine-order/5553285002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/07/31/florid...
- wwweston 6y ago
  > Barely? Barely?! The fact that you're linking to news coverage featuring numbers in the... dozens makes it seem like "barely" is justifiable in the context of populations of millions. (It's certainly arguable that outside distanced activities shouldn't be the front lines of enforcement, but once you're infected you really are a risk to not even just any individual you happen by but anyone down the chain of infection.) > Trillions of dollars of economic damages. And if you assume that the damages came primarily from civil actions, then I guess that'd make sense. The reality is that there was never an option to avoid economic damages once the epidemic was uncontained. The bulk of the impacts come from the threat of the illness itself. Where most people are avoiding economic and social activities, it's not because they're forced into it, it's because they regard the personal or social risk to be significant. Lift all restrictions and only some margin of people will dive back in and even many of those will do so selectively. The major thing that civil actions do is coordinate the possibility of effective healthy mitigations. > Millions of lives will be lost due to the prioritization of the COVID over all else. Probably not from economic impacts: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090928172530.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090928172530.h... https://www.history.com/news/great-depression-economy-life-expectancy https://www.history.com/news/great-depression-economy-life-e... It is true that severe covid cases take up a lot of resources in the medical system and that could cost lives, but that's an argument for mitigating measures. > My children can’t go to school. I might be persuaded based on enough further commentary that it's crucial that your children get influences forming their critical thinking skills from outside the home, but I certainly wouldn't assume it on the basis of a single comment.
  - zaroth 6y ago
    The goalposts just moved so far we’re not even on the same field. >> In 1918, several American cities jailed people breaking quarantine or otherwise putting public health at risk. And in 2020, several American cities did exactly the same. The link was my citation. Aside from millions of dollars in fines, and hundreds of thousands of small businesses forced shut to the point of financial ruin, yes, people have also been arrested. >> Public health powers are old, precedented and powerful. They are barely being used here. Now, the question wasn’t the necessity of the response, or the appropriateness of the response or even the effectiveness of the response. My incredulity was simply with the characterization of the magnitude of the public health response. The magnitude of the public health response is unprecedentedly and undeniably massive. To say public health powers are barely being applied is wrong, but also unfair to all those who have been directly impacted. Your opinion that people would be fearful enough of COVID that they wouldn’t have gone out anyway is highly speculative, belied by the data, but also besides the point. I think your concluding paragraph is entirely inappropriate and against site guidelines. I suggest you delete it. More so, it’s just in bad taste. Two weeks ago an 11 year old shot themselves on a Zoom call. It’s just one of the most grievous examples of the mental health impact of school shutdowns, but the overall mental health of school age children has been broadly effected.

reissbaker 6y ago

If you can be trusted to do the right thing — that is, report a positive result to relevant health authorities so they can do contact tracing, and self-quarantine for the duration of your illness — then having it automatically reported for you is a useful convenience. If you can't be trusted to do the right thing — that is, if you're not going to report your positive test result — then automatic reporting is useful for society to handle that case, too. I'm generally against mass data collection, especially from the government. But not in this case. Hiding a positive result is ethically indefensible. Even if you're feeling fine, interacting with you while you're positive may be a death sentence for others.