16 ms·

Yeah what's next? Making other behaviors that have a small but established likelihood of endangering the lives of others or their property illegal at little to

Yeah what's next? Making other behaviors that have a small but established likelihood of endangering the lives of others or their property illegal at little to no cost to the liberty of an individual? Pretty soon I won't be able to drive my car under the influence, or without proper insurance, or while not wearing a seatbelt, or I won't be able to discharge my firearms in my 0.2 acre backyard in a suburban area. 650,000 people have died and that's with taking some pretty extreme precautions (for what we consider extreme anyway). It's not just the old or the infirm. Healthy people in their 20s and 30s. Toddlers. We have gone to war over much less. We have a ton of safety regulations that govern how we build homes and infrastructure, how we plan for fires and natural disasters, how you live your daily life, and pretty much anything else because they are effective and do save lives. This one seems reasonable (mandatory COVID vaccination - influenza vaccines are significantly less effective and in general the people that die from it society seems to be ok with).

robmccoll 5y ago
I really wish HN had a controversy upvote / downvote ratio - maybe multiplied by number of votes?
- wikidani 5y ago
  That's the kind of stuff that ruined reddit
  - robmccoll 5y ago
    Fair point. I'd be curious to see it as data points on the range and variance in opinions on the site. I have less interest in which individual comments are "controversial".
disneygibson 5y ago
You really think those death numbers are accurate? There are a ton of incentives present (read: federal $$$) for hospitals and others to exaggerate death counts and case numbers.
- leesalminen 5y ago
  Do you have any sources to support your claim of financial incentives to diagnose COVID? I've heard this a lot, but haven't seen any strong evidence.
  - disneygibson 5y ago
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-hospitals-aid-insi-idUSKBN29310X https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-hospit...
- Aditya_Garg 5y ago
  They can exaggerate but they can’t completely fabricate 650k deaths. What number do you think warrants this action? 500k? 300k?
  - disneygibson 5y ago
    What do you mean by this action, specifically? Everything that has been done since March 2020?
  - oceanplexian 5y ago
    Well, technically smoking kills ~400k a year and has been legal for over a century, so we could start there. We could get into heart disease and diabetes and the legality of unhealthy food if it’s about the raw numbers.
    - zibzab 5y ago
      You are ignoring two very important facts: 1. I can choose to not smoke and eat healthy which gives me a reasonable chance to not die of those. 2. 650k number is _despite_ closing down half the world and washing hands every hour or two, wearing masks and hospitals working at 200% capacity.
- robmccoll 5y ago
  Yes. Based on my traumatized friends that work in ERs in a few different states and the people I know who have died, I would say that it is much more reasonable to believe that those numbers are close to accurate than to suspect a large scale conspiracy, but I guess the world is less interesting and more depressing when you consider the likely reality over shadowy intrigue.
mfer 5y ago
An interesting element is my choice vs choices put on me. There is another angle people talk about... The building I work in was designed and built by others. Regulations mean they can't cut corners in their impact of me. A vaccine that protects me from getting the virus or getting a serious case. It's a difference between others work impacting my safety and my own choices impacting my safety. This is an area worth pondering.
- plainnoodles 5y ago
  Never send to know for whom the bell tolls. As another comment said, if the unvaccinated were willing to stick to their "ideals" and die at home instead of an ICU bed, I would be a lot more amenable to arguments against mandates. But as-is, normal people who took precautions to get vaccinated are being hurt by anti-vaxxers when they get an unrelated illness or injury (car wreck, infection, etc) and then suffer worse outcomes (including death) just because the ICU beds are full of people who could have literally just decided not to be in them (given how effective the vaccine is at preventing hospitalization). Our society is far too interconnected for almost anything to not at least indirectly affect someone else, even if the first-order effects are well-limited to "just you". Never send to know for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee.
  - mfer 5y ago
    >As another comment said, if the unvaccinated were willing to stick to their "ideals" and die at home instead of an ICU bed, I would be a lot more amenable to arguments against mandates. This depends on where you're at. Where I live we currently are not near capacity in hospitals or ICUs. There isn't an issue and we are not near one. Should so many be mandated or highly pushed to get vaccinated because of a few hot spots that affect a small part of the population? This is a question I've heard. Note, there is a difference between believing (or knowing) the positive effects of vaccines, being a proponent, and getting one yourself. This is about forcing others against their will do to something. I fear this will come back to bite our nation in the future. Both in terms of the willingness to force people and the repercussions that will come from it.
  - clipradiowallet 5y ago
azth 5y ago
What about things that do have a lot of cost? Drinking (10,000 lives per year lost in the USA due to drunk driving), not to mention destroyed families and caused homicides, smoking (countless lives lost), sexual immorality (countless abortions and mental and psychological effects of casual sexual relationships).
- gilbetron 5y ago
  Drunk driving is illegal, as is smoking in public places (with very broad definitions of "public") - I have no idea what you're on about "sexual immorality", although I would point to the horrific law passed in Texas, as well as many of the terrible laws governing our sex lives. Most of those laws aren't because they hurt people, but because people want to tell other people what to do.
  - azth 5y ago
    Drunk driving is illegal, drinking isn't. Just because drunk driving is illegal doesn't mean people care or are trustworthy to abide. The stats speak for themselves. And as I mentioned, it's not just drunk driving, but homicides and many other problems. Secondly, see the new research coming out about second or even third hand smoking. It affects everyone. Sexual immorality does hurt people and society at large. Everyone is paying the cost.
- etrautmann 5y ago
  The alternative also has a large cost. Pretending that no lives would be lost under a prohibition scenario ignores the data from times that's been tried either for alcohol or other drugs.
  - azth 5y ago
    It can be done correctly without lives lost. See Islamic nations for their entire existence pre Sykes Picot
flavius29663 5y ago
Not saying I disagree with you, but all the examples you gave are about some things that are a privilege or just optional (e.g. if you can't build a bridge to follow all the latest standards, you can just postpone it). Working is not really a privilege, you have to do it in order to survive.
- dntrkv 5y ago
  Driving is just as vital to survival as having a job in most of the US.
  - flavius29663 5y ago
    but not driving drunk...you choose to drink, which is entirely optional. Driving drunk is something you choose to do. Getting a vaccine by mandate is something the state decides you have to do, with no way around it, if you want to continue working.
    - dntrkv 5y ago
      I was commenting on the insurance part, not the drunk driving. But we don't even have to go that far, we require licenses to drive, and if you aren't fit to drive, you can be denied that privilege outright.
Madmallard 5y ago
“ 650,000 people have died and that's with taking some pretty extreme precautions (for what we consider extreme anyway). It's not just the old or the infirm. Healthy people in their 20s and 30s. Toddlers. We have gone to war over much less.” https://www.statista.com/statistics/1191568/reported-deaths-from-covid-by-age-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1191568/reported-deaths-... Given that 10% of the population has been exposed at this point that makes likelihood of dying in the young age ranges extremely low. So many commonplace things people do in these age ranges have a vastly higher chance of causing death.
- virtuallynathan 5y ago
  It's well over 10% who have had covid, probably quite a bit north of 30%.
SkyBelow 5y ago
>Yeah what's next? Making other behaviors that have a small but established likelihood of endangering the lives of others or their property illegal at little to no cost to the liberty of an individual? Pretty soon I won't be able to drive my car under the influence, or without proper insurance, or while not wearing a seatbelt, or I won't be able to discharge my firearms in my 0.2 acre backyard in a suburban area. I wonder how many lives we could save if we required every car to have a breathalyzer that has to be used to start the car, and maybe a second test once 2 miles have been driven. Also, if you want to get technical, most of those car laws only apply to public roads. On a private road you can get away with far far more.
mardifoufs 5y ago
Florida has been doing almost nothing since April 2020 and still has less deaths per capita than North eastern states with their extreme measures. So your argument that even 600k deaths was only achieved because of lockdown etc does not make any sense. You couldnt tell what state does or does not have strict covid restrictions if you looked at the outcomes.
- tzs 5y ago
  That's a bit misleading because those NE states got around half of their deaths in April and May 2020. From June 1 2020 to the present Florida has had 203 deaths per 100k. New York has had 130 deaths per 100k. New Jersey has had 170 deaths per 100k. From June 1 2021 to the present, Florida has 42 deaths per 100k, New York 7 deaths per 100k, New Jersey 9 deaths per 100k. For the first ~10% of the pandemic in the US you were statistically safer in Florida than in New York or New Jersey. For the rest of the time you were statistically safer in New York or New Jersey than in Florida.

robmccoll 5y ago

I really wish HN had a controversy upvote / downvote ratio - maybe multiplied by number of votes?

wikidani 5y ago
That's the kind of stuff that ruined reddit
- robmccoll 5y ago
  Fair point. I'd be curious to see it as data points on the range and variance in opinions on the site. I have less interest in which individual comments are "controversial".

disneygibson 5y ago

You really think those death numbers are accurate? There are a ton of incentives present (read: federal $$$) for hospitals and others to exaggerate death counts and case numbers.

leesalminen 5y ago
Do you have any sources to support your claim of financial incentives to diagnose COVID? I've heard this a lot, but haven't seen any strong evidence.
- disneygibson 5y ago
  https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-hospitals-aid-insi-idUSKBN29310X https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-hospit...
Aditya_Garg 5y ago
They can exaggerate but they can’t completely fabricate 650k deaths. What number do you think warrants this action? 500k? 300k?
- disneygibson 5y ago
  What do you mean by this action, specifically? Everything that has been done since March 2020?
- oceanplexian 5y ago
  Well, technically smoking kills ~400k a year and has been legal for over a century, so we could start there. We could get into heart disease and diabetes and the legality of unhealthy food if it’s about the raw numbers.
  - zibzab 5y ago
    You are ignoring two very important facts: 1. I can choose to not smoke and eat healthy which gives me a reasonable chance to not die of those. 2. 650k number is _despite_ closing down half the world and washing hands every hour or two, wearing masks and hospitals working at 200% capacity.
robmccoll 5y ago
Yes. Based on my traumatized friends that work in ERs in a few different states and the people I know who have died, I would say that it is much more reasonable to believe that those numbers are close to accurate than to suspect a large scale conspiracy, but I guess the world is less interesting and more depressing when you consider the likely reality over shadowy intrigue.

mfer 5y ago

An interesting element is my choice vs choices put on me. There is another angle people talk about... The building I work in was designed and built by others. Regulations mean they can't cut corners in their impact of me. A vaccine that protects me from getting the virus or getting a serious case. It's a difference between others work impacting my safety and my own choices impacting my safety. This is an area worth pondering.

plainnoodles 5y ago
Never send to know for whom the bell tolls. As another comment said, if the unvaccinated were willing to stick to their "ideals" and die at home instead of an ICU bed, I would be a lot more amenable to arguments against mandates. But as-is, normal people who took precautions to get vaccinated are being hurt by anti-vaxxers when they get an unrelated illness or injury (car wreck, infection, etc) and then suffer worse outcomes (including death) just because the ICU beds are full of people who could have literally just decided not to be in them (given how effective the vaccine is at preventing hospitalization). Our society is far too interconnected for almost anything to not at least indirectly affect someone else, even if the first-order effects are well-limited to "just you". Never send to know for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee.
- mfer 5y ago
  >As another comment said, if the unvaccinated were willing to stick to their "ideals" and die at home instead of an ICU bed, I would be a lot more amenable to arguments against mandates. This depends on where you're at. Where I live we currently are not near capacity in hospitals or ICUs. There isn't an issue and we are not near one. Should so many be mandated or highly pushed to get vaccinated because of a few hot spots that affect a small part of the population? This is a question I've heard. Note, there is a difference between believing (or knowing) the positive effects of vaccines, being a proponent, and getting one yourself. This is about forcing others against their will do to something. I fear this will come back to bite our nation in the future. Both in terms of the willingness to force people and the repercussions that will come from it.
- clipradiowallet 5y ago

azth 5y ago

What about things that do have a lot of cost? Drinking (10,000 lives per year lost in the USA due to drunk driving), not to mention destroyed families and caused homicides, smoking (countless lives lost), sexual immorality (countless abortions and mental and psychological effects of casual sexual relationships).

gilbetron 5y ago
Drunk driving is illegal, as is smoking in public places (with very broad definitions of "public") - I have no idea what you're on about "sexual immorality", although I would point to the horrific law passed in Texas, as well as many of the terrible laws governing our sex lives. Most of those laws aren't because they hurt people, but because people want to tell other people what to do.
- azth 5y ago
  Drunk driving is illegal, drinking isn't. Just because drunk driving is illegal doesn't mean people care or are trustworthy to abide. The stats speak for themselves. And as I mentioned, it's not just drunk driving, but homicides and many other problems. Secondly, see the new research coming out about second or even third hand smoking. It affects everyone. Sexual immorality does hurt people and society at large. Everyone is paying the cost.
etrautmann 5y ago
The alternative also has a large cost. Pretending that no lives would be lost under a prohibition scenario ignores the data from times that's been tried either for alcohol or other drugs.
- azth 5y ago
  It can be done correctly without lives lost. See Islamic nations for their entire existence pre Sykes Picot

flavius29663 5y ago

Not saying I disagree with you, but all the examples you gave are about some things that are a privilege or just optional (e.g. if you can't build a bridge to follow all the latest standards, you can just postpone it). Working is not really a privilege, you have to do it in order to survive.

dntrkv 5y ago
Driving is just as vital to survival as having a job in most of the US.
- flavius29663 5y ago
  but not driving drunk...you choose to drink, which is entirely optional. Driving drunk is something you choose to do. Getting a vaccine by mandate is something the state decides you have to do, with no way around it, if you want to continue working.
  - dntrkv 5y ago
    I was commenting on the insurance part, not the drunk driving. But we don't even have to go that far, we require licenses to drive, and if you aren't fit to drive, you can be denied that privilege outright.

Madmallard 5y ago

“ 650,000 people have died and that's with taking some pretty extreme precautions (for what we consider extreme anyway). It's not just the old or the infirm. Healthy people in their 20s and 30s. Toddlers. We have gone to war over much less.” https://www.statista.com/statistics/1191568/reported-deaths-from-covid-by-age-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1191568/reported-deaths-... Given that 10% of the population has been exposed at this point that makes likelihood of dying in the young age ranges extremely low. So many commonplace things people do in these age ranges have a vastly higher chance of causing death.

virtuallynathan 5y ago
It's well over 10% who have had covid, probably quite a bit north of 30%.

SkyBelow 5y ago

>Yeah what's next? Making other behaviors that have a small but established likelihood of endangering the lives of others or their property illegal at little to no cost to the liberty of an individual? Pretty soon I won't be able to drive my car under the influence, or without proper insurance, or while not wearing a seatbelt, or I won't be able to discharge my firearms in my 0.2 acre backyard in a suburban area. I wonder how many lives we could save if we required every car to have a breathalyzer that has to be used to start the car, and maybe a second test once 2 miles have been driven. Also, if you want to get technical, most of those car laws only apply to public roads. On a private road you can get away with far far more.

mardifoufs 5y ago

Florida has been doing almost nothing since April 2020 and still has less deaths per capita than North eastern states with their extreme measures. So your argument that even 600k deaths was only achieved because of lockdown etc does not make any sense. You couldnt tell what state does or does not have strict covid restrictions if you looked at the outcomes.

tzs 5y ago
That's a bit misleading because those NE states got around half of their deaths in April and May 2020. From June 1 2020 to the present Florida has had 203 deaths per 100k. New York has had 130 deaths per 100k. New Jersey has had 170 deaths per 100k. From June 1 2021 to the present, Florida has 42 deaths per 100k, New York 7 deaths per 100k, New Jersey 9 deaths per 100k. For the first ~10% of the pandemic in the US you were statistically safer in Florida than in New York or New Jersey. For the rest of the time you were statistically safer in New York or New Jersey than in Florida.