6 ms·

Having anyone's freedoms dependent on available hospital capacity is a terrible way to run a society. So is letting people die from otherwise treatable injurie

by vanusa 5y ago

Having anyone's freedoms dependent on available hospital capacity is a terrible way to run a society. So is letting people die from otherwise treatable injuries and infections so someone else can enjoy their "freedom" to ... you know what I'm driving at.

enchiridion 5y ago
Yes, exactly. The world is dangerous and full of risks. Freedom is literally worth sacrificing lives for. This is a fundamental founding idea of the US.
- vanusa 5y ago
  Other people's lives, you mean.
  - notch656a 5y ago
    Yes exactly. When the lock down and mask mandates resulted in neuroplastic infants and toddlers not seeing as much lip and face movement during critical speech and socialization age (and in many case, daycares and schools being shut down resulting in less critical socialization), you sacrifice younger children in the hopes some others will be saved. So we sacrifice other lives (young children) so our own adult lives can perhaps be saved.
    - theandrewbailey 5y ago
      Also consider that young children are the demographic least affected (symptoms and death) by COVID. It was obvious a few months in, but these debilitating policies continued.
    - vanusa 5y ago
      So we sacrifice other lives (young children) so our own adult lives can perhaps be saved. The lives of their grandparents (and of older folks not related to us), you mean. You know, the ones actually the most vulnerable to this epidemic. I agree that the choices are difficult, no matter what we do. But there's no need to distort the basic equation, and make this particular choice appear to be something plainly selfish (young and mid-life adults snubbing the kids to cover their own asses) when it plainly is not.
      - notch656a 5y ago
        No I don't mean just our grandparents. I benefit way more from any reduction in exposure to covid than my kid does. The difference between a 2 year old and a mid 30s person is significant.
        vanusa 5y ago
        The point is it's misleading to say "so our own adult lives can be saved" when that's not the main motivation for these policies. If the health system becomes incapacitated, and we have to push people out of ICUs to make way for the "freedom fighter" who won't vaccinate (which is already happening in some areas), then everyone suffers -- not just "mid 30s adults".
        notch656a 5y ago
        So you want "freedom fighter" (whatever you consider that to be) to sign their death warrant? How are you going to keep them out of the hospital? I'd happily sign a death warrant today if it means the end of this tired argument of people complaining that people seek healthcare when they are ill. >If the health system becomes incapacitated If the health care system isn't working, then we need to look at expanding healthcare; perhaps by eliminating a lot of the regulations that drag it down. You don't have the right to force someone to make sure there are beds at a hospital. I don't think the answer is compelling non-consensual activity in private business such as masks. ------------------ >It's not that they "seek healthcare". But that they expect to have critical resources like ICU beds available to them (and therefore, denied to others) so they can enjoy their "freedom" (to ignore common sense) -- that folks take issue with. You're seriously complaining that when someone seeks healthcare they are using a bed? You know how many people using beds are there for non-essential activities (motorcycling, roofing a non-essential shed, snake bite because they went hiking, whatever). Should we outlaw any non-essential activity that could send you to the ED? It's 'common sense' to me that my (almost) 2 year old's speech development will be harmed if she can't see me speak (and at least one initial study suggests that is correct), so I don't wear a mask anywhere when she's with me nor do I enter establishments that require me to. Maybe that makes me a 'freedom fighter' for my kid's development.
  - ipaddr 5y ago
    You choose to leave your house. Isn't that your choice?
    - lost-found 5y ago
      Ahh yes because everyone knows heart attacks, strokes, aneurisms and burst appendixes never happen in your own home.
- laurent92 5y ago
  And many people, given the choice between money or freedom, choose freedom, even if it can make them poor. Heck, Snowden chose to relinquish wealth to defend everyone’s liberty.
caditinpiscinam 5y ago
I think it's less about freedoms and more about rights Is it a person's right to fly on an airplane without wearing a mask? I'd don't think so Is it a person's right to decide what medicines they take? I'd say yes, definitely You can take away freedoms in the interest of others, but not rights, in my opinion. The policies I've seen are pretty fuzzy on this distinction
- vanusa 5y ago
  Is it a person's right to decide what medicines they take? I'd say yes, definitely. Note that the mandates in question (those in Quebec) don't force you to get the vaccine. They just say that if you don't, you no longer have an inalienable "right" to shop at Walmart.

by vanusa 5y ago

enchiridion 5y ago

Yes, exactly. The world is dangerous and full of risks. Freedom is literally worth sacrificing lives for. This is a fundamental founding idea of the US.

vanusa 5y ago
Other people's lives, you mean.
- notch656a 5y ago
  Yes exactly. When the lock down and mask mandates resulted in neuroplastic infants and toddlers not seeing as much lip and face movement during critical speech and socialization age (and in many case, daycares and schools being shut down resulting in less critical socialization), you sacrifice younger children in the hopes some others will be saved. So we sacrifice other lives (young children) so our own adult lives can perhaps be saved.
  - theandrewbailey 5y ago
    Also consider that young children are the demographic least affected (symptoms and death) by COVID. It was obvious a few months in, but these debilitating policies continued.
  - vanusa 5y ago
    So we sacrifice other lives (young children) so our own adult lives can perhaps be saved. The lives of their grandparents (and of older folks not related to us), you mean. You know, the ones actually the most vulnerable to this epidemic. I agree that the choices are difficult, no matter what we do. But there's no need to distort the basic equation, and make this particular choice appear to be something plainly selfish (young and mid-life adults snubbing the kids to cover their own asses) when it plainly is not.
    - notch656a 5y ago
      No I don't mean just our grandparents. I benefit way more from any reduction in exposure to covid than my kid does. The difference between a 2 year old and a mid 30s person is significant.
      - vanusa 5y ago
        The point is it's misleading to say "so our own adult lives can be saved" when that's not the main motivation for these policies. If the health system becomes incapacitated, and we have to push people out of ICUs to make way for the "freedom fighter" who won't vaccinate (which is already happening in some areas), then everyone suffers -- not just "mid 30s adults".
        notch656a 5y ago
        So you want "freedom fighter" (whatever you consider that to be) to sign their death warrant? How are you going to keep them out of the hospital? I'd happily sign a death warrant today if it means the end of this tired argument of people complaining that people seek healthcare when they are ill. >If the health system becomes incapacitated If the health care system isn't working, then we need to look at expanding healthcare; perhaps by eliminating a lot of the regulations that drag it down. You don't have the right to force someone to make sure there are beds at a hospital. I don't think the answer is compelling non-consensual activity in private business such as masks. ------------------ >It's not that they "seek healthcare". But that they expect to have critical resources like ICU beds available to them (and therefore, denied to others) so they can enjoy their "freedom" (to ignore common sense) -- that folks take issue with. You're seriously complaining that when someone seeks healthcare they are using a bed? You know how many people using beds are there for non-essential activities (motorcycling, roofing a non-essential shed, snake bite because they went hiking, whatever). Should we outlaw any non-essential activity that could send you to the ED? It's 'common sense' to me that my (almost) 2 year old's speech development will be harmed if she can't see me speak (and at least one initial study suggests that is correct), so I don't wear a mask anywhere when she's with me nor do I enter establishments that require me to. Maybe that makes me a 'freedom fighter' for my kid's development.
- ipaddr 5y ago
  You choose to leave your house. Isn't that your choice?
  - lost-found 5y ago
    Ahh yes because everyone knows heart attacks, strokes, aneurisms and burst appendixes never happen in your own home.
laurent92 5y ago
And many people, given the choice between money or freedom, choose freedom, even if it can make them poor. Heck, Snowden chose to relinquish wealth to defend everyone’s liberty.

caditinpiscinam 5y ago

I think it's less about freedoms and more about rights Is it a person's right to fly on an airplane without wearing a mask? I'd don't think so Is it a person's right to decide what medicines they take? I'd say yes, definitely You can take away freedoms in the interest of others, but not rights, in my opinion. The policies I've seen are pretty fuzzy on this distinction

vanusa 5y ago
Is it a person's right to decide what medicines they take? I'd say yes, definitely. Note that the mandates in question (those in Quebec) don't force you to get the vaccine. They just say that if you don't, you no longer have an inalienable "right" to shop at Walmart.