4 ms·

> I am here to tell you that those practices are wrong, at least for the U.S. They are a form of detainment without due process, contrary to the spirit of the C

by cma 6y ago

> I am here to tell you that those practices are wrong, at least for the U.S. They are a form of detainment without due process, contrary to the spirit of the Constitution and, more important, to American notions of individual rights. Yes, those who test positive should have greater options for self-isolation than they currently do. But if a family wishes to stick together and care for each other, it is not the province of the government to tell them otherwise. If we had widespread ebola or if coronavirus was as deadly as smallpox I don't think many people would be making this argument, and we already have plenty of case law.

ghaff 6y ago
At least some of the case law is over 100 years old, e.g. a state making a smallpox vaccine mandatory being considered allowable. And I'd point out that SCOTUS, a bit later, also upheld voluntary sterilization of people with diminished mental capacity. So I'm not sure what all today's SCOTUS would uphold with respect to state action.
xyzzyz 6y ago
If we had widespread Ebola, people would stay home on their own, without the state forcing them to. The whole reason people flout the restriction is because their personal risk is very low. For people under 45, catching covid presents similar risk of dying to a year of driving a car. If government tried to ban driving, arguing that it is for my safety, I would be pissed and would not accept that law. However, if 10% of drivers died every year, I wouldn’t need government to stop me from driving, I’d stay the hell away from the killing machine myself.
- ryandrake 6y ago
  > If we had widespread Ebola, people would stay home on their own, without the state forcing them to. Sadly, I'm not so sure of this, anymore. 350K+ deaths in the USA alone has called into question the public's ability to assess risk and do the right thing. I don't see why it would be any different for something like Ebola. You'd still have the same viral Facebook videos calling it a hoax and a conspiracy. You'd have the same toothless, unenforced "orders" from the government to quarantine. You'd have the same people refusing to cooperate Because Freedom. I don't see why anything would be different except for the number of deaths.
  - ativzzz 6y ago
    Something like 600-700k people die in the US of heart disease every year and yet we don't do much to combat obesity and unhealthy lifestyles.
    - warkdarrior 6y ago
      Heart disease and obesity are not infectious, so one person's actions do not threaten another person's health.
  - xyzzyz 6y ago
    > I don't see why anything would be different except for the number of deaths. The number of deaths would make it much clearer that the risk is real. Again, if driving killed 10% of people every year, people saying it is a hoax would not be very convincing, when most of people you know who tried driving for a few years are dead.

by cma 6y ago

ghaff 6y ago

At least some of the case law is over 100 years old, e.g. a state making a smallpox vaccine mandatory being considered allowable. And I'd point out that SCOTUS, a bit later, also upheld voluntary sterilization of people with diminished mental capacity. So I'm not sure what all today's SCOTUS would uphold with respect to state action.

xyzzyz 6y ago

If we had widespread Ebola, people would stay home on their own, without the state forcing them to. The whole reason people flout the restriction is because their personal risk is very low. For people under 45, catching covid presents similar risk of dying to a year of driving a car. If government tried to ban driving, arguing that it is for my safety, I would be pissed and would not accept that law. However, if 10% of drivers died every year, I wouldn’t need government to stop me from driving, I’d stay the hell away from the killing machine myself.

ryandrake 6y ago
> If we had widespread Ebola, people would stay home on their own, without the state forcing them to. Sadly, I'm not so sure of this, anymore. 350K+ deaths in the USA alone has called into question the public's ability to assess risk and do the right thing. I don't see why it would be any different for something like Ebola. You'd still have the same viral Facebook videos calling it a hoax and a conspiracy. You'd have the same toothless, unenforced "orders" from the government to quarantine. You'd have the same people refusing to cooperate Because Freedom. I don't see why anything would be different except for the number of deaths.
- ativzzz 6y ago
  Something like 600-700k people die in the US of heart disease every year and yet we don't do much to combat obesity and unhealthy lifestyles.
  - warkdarrior 6y ago
    Heart disease and obesity are not infectious, so one person's actions do not threaten another person's health.
- xyzzyz 6y ago
  > I don't see why anything would be different except for the number of deaths. The number of deaths would make it much clearer that the risk is real. Again, if driving killed 10% of people every year, people saying it is a hoax would not be very convincing, when most of people you know who tried driving for a few years are dead.