5 ms·

Wild. 'you don't have a right to participate in the public'. Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and sec

Wild. 'you don't have a right to participate in the public'. Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. Article 9. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. Article 13.1. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma... 'quarantine people with disease'. This is an elementary precaution that everyone, vaccinated or not, should voluntarily take at symptom onset. Not only for covid, but for flu as well. However, preemptively restricting the rights of healthy people, just because they may eventually catch a disease, is unheard of.

cogman10 5y ago
> However, preemptively restricting the rights of healthy people, just because they may eventually catch a disease, is unheard of. It is not. In fact, most quarantines take exactly that form where entire households, communities, or in the extreme case cities are locked down. [1] COVID is unique in that it is both more deadly and more infectious than the flu. That's why the measures have been so extreme. They are warranted. Further, COVID has the major issue that a large number of people are asymptomatic. It doesn't work to say "Well, just have people feeling sick stay home" when a large number of people that are spreading the disease don't even know they have it. [2] > 'you don't have a right to participate in the public'. I was perhaps unclear, I mean "being infected with a disease removes your right to participate in public". Without the disease modifier, yes, you have a right to public interaction. Just like you have a right to drive without the drunk modifier. In any event, even the UN agrees that quarantining seemingly healthy people in the face of covid isn't a human rights violation. [3] [1] https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/historyquarantine.html https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/historyquarantine.html [2] https://hartfordhealthcare.org/about-us/news-press/news-detail?articleId=29806&publicid=743 https://hartfordhealthcare.org/about-us/news-press/news-deta... [3] https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/guidance_on_quarantine_of_non-sick_un_personnel.pdf https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/guidance_on_quaran...
- angelzen 5y ago
  'quarantine' comes from Italian 'quarantina': ‘forty days’. It's not 'persempre'. By its very name it implies a time limited action. Link 3 does not support your point: 'The term “quarantine” refers to the separation and restriction of movement of non-sick persons to see if they become sick.'. There is no blanket support for indefinite restriction of rights. Furthermore, the 'line' is muddy. Vaccines are only 66% effective against delta. This means that 33% of vaccinated people are, under your definition, walking public health risks that may catch covid and start shedding virus in the population. Thus we should also indefinitely quarantine vaccinated people. https://www.webmd.com/vaccines/covid-19-vaccine/news/20210825/cdc-covid-19-vaccines-66-percent-effective-against-delta-variant https://www.webmd.com/vaccines/covid-19-vaccine/news/2021082...
  - cogman10 5y ago
    > Link 3 does not support your point: 'The term “quarantine” refers to the separation and restriction of movement of non-sick persons to see if they become sick.'. There is no blanket support for indefinite restriction of rights. What "rights" are is muddy. I'm not proposing an outright quarantine. Nobody is. However, I thought it prudent to point out that the "quarantining of healthy individuals" is not unique or unjustified. Your previous comment suggested that all quarantines are human rights violations. However, what I see from all medical experts is social distancing, masking, and getting vaccination. Those are the "rights" being infringed on at the moment. At one point, the CDC did recommend that someone vaccinated didn't need to mask up. Unfortunately, that changed with Delta as you correctly point out. A vaccine + mask would be highly effective at stopping the spread of delta.
    - angelzen 5y ago
      Perpetually quarantining certain classes of people is abject tyranny. Worse, the line is muddy: there are false positives (unvaccinated, but with solid post-covid immunity) and false negatives (vaccinated, but with breakthrough infections). Doing a 40 day isolation to see if there is an active outbreak is completely different than isolation in perpetuity: 'you don't have a right to participate in the public'. I have yet to see medical evidence that vaccinating under 20s, for which the risk of covid-infection complications are vanishingly small, has significant positive effects for them. There are people that have already got covid, and their immunity to covid is much stronger than that of mRNA vaccinated people (see the OP article). These 2 classes of unvaccinated people should not be forced to undertake an unnecessary medical procedure with an unclear long-term risk profile. Covid is endemic, there is no path to ZeroCovid. Thus population-level arguments are uncompelling: we are all going to be exposed to one or more covid strains during our lifetime. Given how post-infection immunity is strong (see the OP article), the bulk of the argument comes down to how to manage the first exposure. Riddle me out: There are vaccines, they work really well, I am vaccinated, you probably are vaccinated. Vaccinate your loved ones. We are safe, to the extent of mRNA vaccines are long-term safe. Why do you have to insist that everyone has to take them, to the extent of proposing abject tyranny to accomplish this goal? What are you afraid of? Not a rhetorical question, I stumbled upon an intriguing piece recently: https://thestoa.substack.com/p/ontological-flooding-towards-a-covid https://thestoa.substack.com/p/ontological-flooding-towards-... > The fears that come online for the COVID thesis: I fear dying from the virus and being responsible for the death of others. I also fear being called dumb for not understanding the science and shamed for being called a bad person by failing to act in ways that would protect others. > The fears that come online for the COVID antithesis: I fear losing freedoms and giving my power away to top-down control structures that can slip into totalitarianism. I also fear being societally segregated and persecuted by those scapegoating me for this mess. (If it wasn't clear yet, I also worry about a medical covid antithesis: for <20s, getting the mRNA vaccines is unnecessary and potentially long-term worse than doing nothing.)
nybble41 5y ago
Don't forget: Article 29. Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible. ... In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society. ... These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. Article 30. Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein. Which between them basically nullify articles 1 though 28 to the extent that the infringement can be justified on the basis of "morality" or "public order" or "duties the community"… which is how governments aiming to present themselves as anything more than petty criminal gangs have always justified violating human rights, with or without the UDHR. Regarding the original quote, though: > you don't have a right to participate in the public You do have a right to participate in the public—or more precisely, no one has the right to stop you from interacting voluntarily with whichever members of the public you choose, so long as the other parties consent to the interaction. However, if that participation in the public leads to you getting someone else sick through your own negligence or reckless disregard for others' welfare then you are morally responsible for the consequences of that infection and liable to make the injured party whole, or as close to whole as they can possibly get. Ergo, you ought to take steps to ensure that doesn't happen, for example though vaccination, for your own sake as well as others'.
- angelzen 5y ago
  Got it. There are no human rights. Thanks for spelling it out for the rest of us.
  - nybble41 5y ago
    How did you read that into my comment? There certainly are human rights. The UDHR just doesn't protect them nearly as well as it should. Eliminating the limitations that articles 29 and 30 impose on the rights enumerated in the rest of the document would be a good start, along with certain other contradictions (articles 22, 23, 24, 25, 26.1-2, 27.2, and 28—you can't have a natural right to services which someone else would have to provide to you; that implies slavery, which is contrary to article 4) and some irrelevant commentary (articles 13.3, 25.2) about the authors' preferences about how society is organized which has no bearing on human rights. But the first 20 articles are mostly fine. They should have just stopped there.

cogman10 5y ago

> However, preemptively restricting the rights of healthy people, just because they may eventually catch a disease, is unheard of. It is not. In fact, most quarantines take exactly that form where entire households, communities, or in the extreme case cities are locked down. [1] COVID is unique in that it is both more deadly and more infectious than the flu. That's why the measures have been so extreme. They are warranted. Further, COVID has the major issue that a large number of people are asymptomatic. It doesn't work to say "Well, just have people feeling sick stay home" when a large number of people that are spreading the disease don't even know they have it. [2] > 'you don't have a right to participate in the public'. I was perhaps unclear, I mean "being infected with a disease removes your right to participate in public". Without the disease modifier, yes, you have a right to public interaction. Just like you have a right to drive without the drunk modifier. In any event, even the UN agrees that quarantining seemingly healthy people in the face of covid isn't a human rights violation. [3] [1] https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/historyquarantine.html https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/historyquarantine.html [2] https://hartfordhealthcare.org/about-us/news-press/news-detail?articleId=29806&publicid=743 https://hartfordhealthcare.org/about-us/news-press/news-deta... [3] https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/guidance_on_quarantine_of_non-sick_un_personnel.pdf https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/guidance_on_quaran...

angelzen 5y ago
'quarantine' comes from Italian 'quarantina': ‘forty days’. It's not 'persempre'. By its very name it implies a time limited action. Link 3 does not support your point: 'The term “quarantine” refers to the separation and restriction of movement of non-sick persons to see if they become sick.'. There is no blanket support for indefinite restriction of rights. Furthermore, the 'line' is muddy. Vaccines are only 66% effective against delta. This means that 33% of vaccinated people are, under your definition, walking public health risks that may catch covid and start shedding virus in the population. Thus we should also indefinitely quarantine vaccinated people. https://www.webmd.com/vaccines/covid-19-vaccine/news/20210825/cdc-covid-19-vaccines-66-percent-effective-against-delta-variant https://www.webmd.com/vaccines/covid-19-vaccine/news/2021082...
- cogman10 5y ago
  > Link 3 does not support your point: 'The term “quarantine” refers to the separation and restriction of movement of non-sick persons to see if they become sick.'. There is no blanket support for indefinite restriction of rights. What "rights" are is muddy. I'm not proposing an outright quarantine. Nobody is. However, I thought it prudent to point out that the "quarantining of healthy individuals" is not unique or unjustified. Your previous comment suggested that all quarantines are human rights violations. However, what I see from all medical experts is social distancing, masking, and getting vaccination. Those are the "rights" being infringed on at the moment. At one point, the CDC did recommend that someone vaccinated didn't need to mask up. Unfortunately, that changed with Delta as you correctly point out. A vaccine + mask would be highly effective at stopping the spread of delta.
  - angelzen 5y ago
    Perpetually quarantining certain classes of people is abject tyranny. Worse, the line is muddy: there are false positives (unvaccinated, but with solid post-covid immunity) and false negatives (vaccinated, but with breakthrough infections). Doing a 40 day isolation to see if there is an active outbreak is completely different than isolation in perpetuity: 'you don't have a right to participate in the public'. I have yet to see medical evidence that vaccinating under 20s, for which the risk of covid-infection complications are vanishingly small, has significant positive effects for them. There are people that have already got covid, and their immunity to covid is much stronger than that of mRNA vaccinated people (see the OP article). These 2 classes of unvaccinated people should not be forced to undertake an unnecessary medical procedure with an unclear long-term risk profile. Covid is endemic, there is no path to ZeroCovid. Thus population-level arguments are uncompelling: we are all going to be exposed to one or more covid strains during our lifetime. Given how post-infection immunity is strong (see the OP article), the bulk of the argument comes down to how to manage the first exposure. Riddle me out: There are vaccines, they work really well, I am vaccinated, you probably are vaccinated. Vaccinate your loved ones. We are safe, to the extent of mRNA vaccines are long-term safe. Why do you have to insist that everyone has to take them, to the extent of proposing abject tyranny to accomplish this goal? What are you afraid of? Not a rhetorical question, I stumbled upon an intriguing piece recently: https://thestoa.substack.com/p/ontological-flooding-towards-a-covid https://thestoa.substack.com/p/ontological-flooding-towards-... > The fears that come online for the COVID thesis: I fear dying from the virus and being responsible for the death of others. I also fear being called dumb for not understanding the science and shamed for being called a bad person by failing to act in ways that would protect others. > The fears that come online for the COVID antithesis: I fear losing freedoms and giving my power away to top-down control structures that can slip into totalitarianism. I also fear being societally segregated and persecuted by those scapegoating me for this mess. (If it wasn't clear yet, I also worry about a medical covid antithesis: for <20s, getting the mRNA vaccines is unnecessary and potentially long-term worse than doing nothing.)

nybble41 5y ago

Don't forget: Article 29. Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible. ... In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society. ... These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. Article 30. Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein. Which between them basically nullify articles 1 though 28 to the extent that the infringement can be justified on the basis of "morality" or "public order" or "duties the community"… which is how governments aiming to present themselves as anything more than petty criminal gangs have always justified violating human rights, with or without the UDHR. Regarding the original quote, though: > you don't have a right to participate in the public You do have a right to participate in the public—or more precisely, no one has the right to stop you from interacting voluntarily with whichever members of the public you choose, so long as the other parties consent to the interaction. However, if that participation in the public leads to you getting someone else sick through your own negligence or reckless disregard for others' welfare then you are morally responsible for the consequences of that infection and liable to make the injured party whole, or as close to whole as they can possibly get. Ergo, you ought to take steps to ensure that doesn't happen, for example though vaccination, for your own sake as well as others'.

angelzen 5y ago
Got it. There are no human rights. Thanks for spelling it out for the rest of us.
- nybble41 5y ago
  How did you read that into my comment? There certainly are human rights. The UDHR just doesn't protect them nearly as well as it should. Eliminating the limitations that articles 29 and 30 impose on the rights enumerated in the rest of the document would be a good start, along with certain other contradictions (articles 22, 23, 24, 25, 26.1-2, 27.2, and 28—you can't have a natural right to services which someone else would have to provide to you; that implies slavery, which is contrary to article 4) and some irrelevant commentary (articles 13.3, 25.2) about the authors' preferences about how society is organized which has no bearing on human rights. But the first 20 articles are mostly fine. They should have just stopped there.