5 ms·

No, because I am also rightly not allowed to throw a brick out of my apartment window without looking below, because that might plausibly hit someone in the hea

No, because I am also rightly not allowed to throw a brick out of my apartment window without looking below, because that might plausibly hit someone in the head. Most bricks that I could throw out my window won't hit someone in the head, but that doesn't mean that it should be legal for me to do it, because it is recklessly endangering people. Same situation if I put a single bullet into a revolver, spun it, and pulled the trigger while aiming at someone's head. There's only a one in six chance that I'd murder that person, but that action should definitely be illegal and force should be applied to anyone who would pull that trigger. This is why we have drunk driving laws. Some non-drunk drivers do kill people, and most drunk drivers don't kill people, but the probability is highly elevated for drunk drivers, and it is therefore illegal to do it. Drunk driving laws aren't authoritarian, they aren't a result of a nanny state. This is the state fulfilling its duty of protecting person B from aggression by person A, whether that aggression happens with absolute certainty (punching me in the face) or with an elevated probability (drunk driving) Now, I don't think vaccines should be forced on people for COVID. I just think that it's a valid thing to do in the right circumstances (e.g Ebola with an R0 of 3).

kcplate 5y ago
Drunk driving laws are punitive. They allow the individual freedom of choice. The equivalent in this scenario is locking someone up because they own a car and a liquor cabinet and could drive drunk and kill someone. Then also giving them the keys to the prison bus to drive around the prison yard while providing an unlimited supply of pruno.
- fighterpilot 5y ago
  You are right that there's a big distinction there. But at the same time, I was attempting to point out that it's not only certainty of outcome where the NAP applies. We all accept that the NAP can validly apply in some situations where an aggression is probabilistic rather than guaranteed. Let me outline an alternative situation where an individual would have no freedom of choice, but where you might agree with the measures imposed. Suppose we identify the first case of Ebola in the US next year. Do you support forcibly quarantining that person? Such an action is eminently necessary in my opinion. But at the same time, such an action violates the two things you've laid out: (1) it doesn't allow the individual any freedom of choice, (2) it is not guaranteed that they'll spread it and is therefore restricting their freedoms merely on the probability of aggression.
  - kcplate 5y ago
    But—they have Ebola. The problem with a mandate of an imperfect vaccine on a person presently without Covid is they don’t have Covid. Frankly, I’d be ok quarantines imposed on Covid patients just like your Ebola scenario. My problem is the whole “Minority Report pre-crimesque” aspect of it all. It’s an unnecessary aggression imposed on an individual to maybe or maybe not prevent a something that maybe or maybe not would have happened anyway. A vaccine that was 100% effective and was 100% safe is probably the only way you can make an argument work. But if it was a 100% effective and a 100% it’s likely you wouldn’t need to mandate it anyway.
    - fighterpilot 5y ago
      That appears to be a distinction without a difference. Even though they already have Ebola, they may not infect someone else. P(infect another) = P(get the disease)*P(transmit after getting it) With the Ebola example, that's P_Ebola = 1.0*P(transmit after getting it). With the COVID example, that's P_COVID = 0.3*P(transmit after getting it). Both of these are sub-1 and not guaranteed to happen. In fact, P_COVID may actually be larger than P_Ebola depending on the relative R0 and assumptions we plug into the above calculations. So I don't see why the distinction you raised has relevance. Detaining someone with Ebola, which we both agree is a good idea, is also a pre-crime measure, because they haven't infected anyone yet and they may never have infected anyone even without detention. And I will also point out once more (due to your second sentence) that I do not support forced vaccinations for COVID. The COVID disease just isn't deadly enough and the vaccines aren't effective enough at preventing transmission for me to support that. I am merely saying I do support it in the abstract if a sufficiently deadly contagious disease comes about in the future.
      - kcplate 5y ago
        One is a known effective reaction to a danger. The other is an ineffective proaction to a possible danger. If you are going to violate someone’s liberty, you better have a damn good reason to do it.

kcplate 5y ago

Drunk driving laws are punitive. They allow the individual freedom of choice. The equivalent in this scenario is locking someone up because they own a car and a liquor cabinet and could drive drunk and kill someone. Then also giving them the keys to the prison bus to drive around the prison yard while providing an unlimited supply of pruno.

fighterpilot 5y ago
You are right that there's a big distinction there. But at the same time, I was attempting to point out that it's not only certainty of outcome where the NAP applies. We all accept that the NAP can validly apply in some situations where an aggression is probabilistic rather than guaranteed. Let me outline an alternative situation where an individual would have no freedom of choice, but where you might agree with the measures imposed. Suppose we identify the first case of Ebola in the US next year. Do you support forcibly quarantining that person? Such an action is eminently necessary in my opinion. But at the same time, such an action violates the two things you've laid out: (1) it doesn't allow the individual any freedom of choice, (2) it is not guaranteed that they'll spread it and is therefore restricting their freedoms merely on the probability of aggression.
- kcplate 5y ago
  But—they have Ebola. The problem with a mandate of an imperfect vaccine on a person presently without Covid is they don’t have Covid. Frankly, I’d be ok quarantines imposed on Covid patients just like your Ebola scenario. My problem is the whole “Minority Report pre-crimesque” aspect of it all. It’s an unnecessary aggression imposed on an individual to maybe or maybe not prevent a something that maybe or maybe not would have happened anyway. A vaccine that was 100% effective and was 100% safe is probably the only way you can make an argument work. But if it was a 100% effective and a 100% it’s likely you wouldn’t need to mandate it anyway.
  - fighterpilot 5y ago
    That appears to be a distinction without a difference. Even though they already have Ebola, they may not infect someone else. P(infect another) = P(get the disease)*P(transmit after getting it) With the Ebola example, that's P_Ebola = 1.0*P(transmit after getting it). With the COVID example, that's P_COVID = 0.3*P(transmit after getting it). Both of these are sub-1 and not guaranteed to happen. In fact, P_COVID may actually be larger than P_Ebola depending on the relative R0 and assumptions we plug into the above calculations. So I don't see why the distinction you raised has relevance. Detaining someone with Ebola, which we both agree is a good idea, is also a pre-crime measure, because they haven't infected anyone yet and they may never have infected anyone even without detention. And I will also point out once more (due to your second sentence) that I do not support forced vaccinations for COVID. The COVID disease just isn't deadly enough and the vaccines aren't effective enough at preventing transmission for me to support that. I am merely saying I do support it in the abstract if a sufficiently deadly contagious disease comes about in the future.
    - kcplate 5y ago
      One is a known effective reaction to a danger. The other is an ineffective proaction to a possible danger. If you are going to violate someone’s liberty, you better have a damn good reason to do it.