4 ms·
This is exactly what I want my government doing. The legitimate purpose of government, even in the minarchist view, is to protect citizens from threats to life
by geofft 6y ago
This is exactly what I want my government doing.
The legitimate purpose of government, even in the minarchist view, is to protect citizens from threats to life, liberty, and property. If a thousand Redcoats showed up in New York and wanted to attack me or my home, the state should do all in its power to stop them. If the soldiers were being pressed into service and have no personal desire to attack, but they still attack, it makes no difference.
It's no different if someone has a communicable disease and has no personal desire to communicate it.
- sokoloff 6y agoIf it were limited to “clear and convincing cases” of being an attacker, I agree with limited reluctance. This bill includes “or suspected” which is inherently different and problematic in my view.
- mytailorisrich 6y agoIf this does not include suspected cases then it becomes useless because in many cases they obviously probably don't have an actual test result for the person but only a suspicion based on, e.g., symptoms. Of course the important aspect here is to carry out a test as quickly as possible in order not to detain a suspected case for longer than necessary.
- sokoloff 6y agoI agree with you on both points. One might reasonably wonder why the second point is not reflected in the bill explicitly. It’s not like we had to break our brains for more than 2 minutes in this.
- rglover 6y agoThe problem with that is the quality of the test being used. Combined with legislation like the above, it has the potential to give you a free pass to "mark" someone, whether or not that's medically accurate. https://www.who.int/news/item/14-12-2020-who-information-notice-for-ivd-users https://www.who.int/news/item/14-12-2020-who-information-not...
- MikeIkerson 6y agoDo you really think somebody like Cuomo won't use this law to target people who defied him, like the Hasidic Jews in NYC?
- LatteLazy 6y agoHonest question: Are those terms of art we are misunderstanding? It seems possible to me (not a lawyer) that "suspected" case means your cops needs reasonable suspension (cough, fever, loss of taste and smell etc). But "clear and convincing" would require more (positive test result?). So what happens if you strongly suspect someone has covid but they decline a test? You can't take action as your suspicion isn't enough. I'd be happy with reasonable suspension (which would apply to anyone with a fever or a cough or other symptoms right now). Thoughts?
- drmom4 6y agoPositive is meaningless with the current test which is accurate maybe 3% of the time.
- sokoloff 6y ago(If I'm "the Department",) Suppose I have reasonable suspicion that you have COVID. Under the bill, I can lock you up for 3 business days without any recourse, so long as I have not determined that you have not been infected or exposed (which is entirely under my control) and for a longer period of time during which you can petition for release. I would be happy with articulable probable cause as the threshold for involuntary confinement, same as for other types of involuntary confinement.
- matz1 6y agoNot just clear and convincing cases, the threat must also be sufficiently dangerous. In regards of covid, the virus is far from dangerous. e.g someone with positive test case is not sufficiently harmfull.
- drmom4 6y agoEven then,it is treatable. I have a 72 yr old friend who was in ICU for 5 days, but now he is fine. Death from nothing but covid is extremely rare; maybe 1% of hospitalized cases.