3 ms·

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 dis

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.
- fighterpilot 5y ago
  They're both possible dangers, even though you're trying to frame the Ebola example as a certain danger, which it just isn't, since there's a very decent chance that they won't infect anyone even without detention. It's not valid to label one as "reaction" and another as "proaction". They're both pre-crime measures for possible dangers. Neither of them is a certain danger. It is also not "ineffective" in the hypothetical I was discussing. You seem to insist on the point that I wish to hoist forced vaccinations for COVID, which I don't. I'm strictly speaking in the abstract given a hypothetical where there's a vaccine capable of preventing transmission of a disease that is much more deadly than COVID. But I agree with your main point that the circumstances should be very extreme before such measures are considered. If there's a contagious disease that is killing 10-50 percent of infected people and early quarantine measures have failed and we have a vaccine that seems effective at preventing transmission, then I'm probably in support of forced vaccinations, although I suspect it might not be necessary since everyone will be desperate to get it.
  - kcplate 5y ago
    Actually, I really don’t think we are really that far off from each other, as we are both making the distinction that an effective measure coupled with an extreme situation would be needed. I’m more concerned with the existing proposed mandate, because it is not hypothetical and I don’t think it satisfies either test (an extreme situation with an effective prevention). A hypothetical Ebola situation would be different animal just because of the mortality rate being around 20+ times the average Covid rate. The other factor being who it kills. Ebola is pretty indiscriminate. Covid danger is significantly higher among elderly and folks with pre-existing conditions and it looks like many of those folks heeded the vaccination call (85%+ have at least a single dose in the US).

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.

fighterpilot 5y ago
They're both possible dangers, even though you're trying to frame the Ebola example as a certain danger, which it just isn't, since there's a very decent chance that they won't infect anyone even without detention. It's not valid to label one as "reaction" and another as "proaction". They're both pre-crime measures for possible dangers. Neither of them is a certain danger. It is also not "ineffective" in the hypothetical I was discussing. You seem to insist on the point that I wish to hoist forced vaccinations for COVID, which I don't. I'm strictly speaking in the abstract given a hypothetical where there's a vaccine capable of preventing transmission of a disease that is much more deadly than COVID. But I agree with your main point that the circumstances should be very extreme before such measures are considered. If there's a contagious disease that is killing 10-50 percent of infected people and early quarantine measures have failed and we have a vaccine that seems effective at preventing transmission, then I'm probably in support of forced vaccinations, although I suspect it might not be necessary since everyone will be desperate to get it.
- kcplate 5y ago
  Actually, I really don’t think we are really that far off from each other, as we are both making the distinction that an effective measure coupled with an extreme situation would be needed. I’m more concerned with the existing proposed mandate, because it is not hypothetical and I don’t think it satisfies either test (an extreme situation with an effective prevention). A hypothetical Ebola situation would be different animal just because of the mortality rate being around 20+ times the average Covid rate. The other factor being who it kills. Ebola is pretty indiscriminate. Covid danger is significantly higher among elderly and folks with pre-existing conditions and it looks like many of those folks heeded the vaccination call (85%+ have at least a single dose in the US).