5 ms·

Please define what you mean by ending the pandemic. > human rights violations. Which ones?

by jahnu 5y ago

roenxi 5y ago
I have no idea what ending the pandemic means. It is a stupid wooly phrase with multiple meanings, often conflicting. That is why I'm unhappy about the policies used to achieve it - whatever it is. > Which ones? Well, looking at a relevant wiki article [0] I'd say the policies I know best (Australia) are bumping up against the articles dealing with freedom of movement, big chunks of articles 18-21 (underlining peaceful association a few time), I'd argue 22-27 - I forget where 'right to earn a living' is but I'm pretty confident it is in thge UDHR somewhere and that is probably in 22-27. At some point (and 2 years is past that point) these philosophical issues like human rights start to matter. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights#Structure_and_content https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human...
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  As with every document of this nature, some of the rights outlined may conflict with each other. You wind up having to reconcile those conflicts. For example, 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. It's pretty easy to see vaccination and other public health measures as one of these scenarios. “Articles 28–30 establish… the areas in which the rights of the individual cannot be applied, the duty of the individual to society…”
  - bigDinosaur 5y ago
    Does that justify how countries like Cuba dealt with HIV? The problem is that public health can reach fairly extreme levels unless it is checked by a strong conception of individual rights. Otherwise you literally get situations like what happened with HIV in Cuba (for those who don't know, HIV positive people were rounded up and sent to institutions as a public health measure to prevent HIV spread). That's why I find it incredibly concerning that people seem to just be happy to suspend individual rights so rapidly. The state of Victoria in Australia recently passed legislation that lets it ignore certain human rights - such as the right to employment - in the face of the pandemic.
    - ceejayoz 5y ago
      > Does that justify how countries like Cuba dealt with HIV? The declaration says “in a democratic society”. Are we counting Cuba as one? > That's why I find it incredibly concerning that people seem to just be happy to suspend individual rights so rapidly. The state of Victoria in Australia recently passed legislation that lets it ignore certain human rights - such as the right to employment - in the face of the pandemic. One might argue they prioritized the Article 3 right to life over that of employment; loss of life being permanent, and employment not, this seems like a justifiable use of Article 29, especially given Australian per capita deaths being massively lower than here in the States. We’ve killed two Tasmanias worth of people over here. (I have relatives in Ballarat, Melbourne, Sydney, and Hobart, incidentally. I’d trade my pandemic experience here in upstate NY with them in a heartbeat.)
      - roenxi 5y ago
        Are you going to try and argue that such a policy would have been on the right side of history as long as it was bought in by a democratic society?
        ceejayoz 5y ago
        No. Did any democratic society take the concentration camp approach for HIV? Or COVID, for that matter? Again, the UDHR asserts a variety of rights. You're correct that Article 23 asserts a right to employment, but the apparent desire to read that as the only provision in the document appears to be a motivated one. The document lays out other rights, which naturally may be in conflict with each other at times, a fact that is explicitly acknowledged in Article 29. I don't object to disagreeing with Victoria's balancing of the various rights, but I do object to the assertion that it's somehow a clear violation of human rights for them to prioritize the rights to life and health over the right to employment.
        roenxi 5y ago
        > The document lays out other rights, which naturally may be in conflict with each other at times Ok, so we've taken away all these rights from unvaxxed people. What rights do you believe this has that allowed others to exercise? Because from where I sit: 1. It doesn't reduce the odds of people getting COVID. We just had ... probably between 2-3 million COVID cases between NSW and Victoria, both with highly vaccinated populations. That is only possible if vaccinated people are infecting each other (as most reporting I've read suggests is happening). 2. Doesn't otherwise affect anyone's rights. Note that there isn't even a right not to get sick from time to time. Although it even if such a right did somehow exist it isn't obvious how an unvaxxed person would be affecting your right to excercise ti since the problem is how much you come into contact with other humans vs anything any other individual is doing. There has been no threat to our hospital systems at any point that justifies what has been done to the unvaxxed. The pressure the hospital system has come under appears to be from the COVID restrictions (and, ironically, probably things like laying off workers for resisting the unreasonable vaccination policies - although if they've got the capacity to start sacking people then they clearly don't see a problem). So it seems to me that we're doing this just for fun / for the joy of being authoritarian. And your damn right the reasoning is motivated. Motivated by a desire to let people earn money and make their lives better at will. To be able to go places and visit friens and family without being arrested. To make their own medical decisions. These are reasonable motivations. These rights are the easy ones with practical justifications.
- jahnu 5y ago
  Why would you set up a straw man that you don't even know the definition of yourself? For me ending the pandemic is a return to regular life and a health care system that is no longer stretched beyond typical capacity. This can be achieved by many outcomes but the most likely one given the state of the world today is getting everyone to take the safe and effective vaccine for as long as necessary.
alexandre_m 5y ago
While we can argue about what are the boundaries for human rights in 1st world countries, it's important to know there have been some very strict and harsh policies regarding Covid in different parts of the world. In Quebec where I live, the unvaccinated are now barred from entry in large retail stores like Walmart and Costco. If you don't have your vaccine passport with you that shows you're vaccinated in these places, then you can't enter, even for groceries. There was curfew in place that prevented everyone from being outside during the evenings and nights for the most part of January. On top of that, the prime minister said publicly in the media that the unvaccinated would start paying an additional tax, even though health care is supposed to be free and accessible for everyone here. The government just backtracked about this the last couple of days. A lot of these policies are extreme and have shown to be completely incoherent and not backed by science, given what we know about the virus since the last couple of months.

Please define what you mean by ending the pandemic. > human rights violations. Which ones?

by jahnu 5y ago

Please define what you mean by ending the pandemic. > human rights violations. Which ones?

I have no idea what ending the pandemic means. It is a stupid wooly phrase with multiple meanings, often conflicting. That is why I'm unhappy about the policies used to achieve it - whatever it is. > Which ones? Well, looking at a relevant wiki article [0] I'd say the policies I know best (Australia) are bumping up against the articles dealing with freedom of movement, big chunks of articles 18-21 (underlining peaceful association a few time), I'd argue 22-27 - I forget where 'right to earn a living' is but I'm pretty confident it is in thge UDHR somewhere and that is probably in 22-27. At some point (and 2 years is past that point) these philosophical issues like human rights start to matter. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights#Structure_and_content https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human...

ceejayoz 5y ago
As with every document of this nature, some of the rights outlined may conflict with each other. You wind up having to reconcile those conflicts. For example, 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. It's pretty easy to see vaccination and other public health measures as one of these scenarios. “Articles 28–30 establish… the areas in which the rights of the individual cannot be applied, the duty of the individual to society…”
- bigDinosaur 5y ago
  Does that justify how countries like Cuba dealt with HIV? The problem is that public health can reach fairly extreme levels unless it is checked by a strong conception of individual rights. Otherwise you literally get situations like what happened with HIV in Cuba (for those who don't know, HIV positive people were rounded up and sent to institutions as a public health measure to prevent HIV spread). That's why I find it incredibly concerning that people seem to just be happy to suspend individual rights so rapidly. The state of Victoria in Australia recently passed legislation that lets it ignore certain human rights - such as the right to employment - in the face of the pandemic.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    > Does that justify how countries like Cuba dealt with HIV? The declaration says “in a democratic society”. Are we counting Cuba as one? > That's why I find it incredibly concerning that people seem to just be happy to suspend individual rights so rapidly. The state of Victoria in Australia recently passed legislation that lets it ignore certain human rights - such as the right to employment - in the face of the pandemic. One might argue they prioritized the Article 3 right to life over that of employment; loss of life being permanent, and employment not, this seems like a justifiable use of Article 29, especially given Australian per capita deaths being massively lower than here in the States. We’ve killed two Tasmanias worth of people over here. (I have relatives in Ballarat, Melbourne, Sydney, and Hobart, incidentally. I’d trade my pandemic experience here in upstate NY with them in a heartbeat.)
    - roenxi 5y ago
      Are you going to try and argue that such a policy would have been on the right side of history as long as it was bought in by a democratic society?
      - ceejayoz 5y ago
        No. Did any democratic society take the concentration camp approach for HIV? Or COVID, for that matter? Again, the UDHR asserts a variety of rights. You're correct that Article 23 asserts a right to employment, but the apparent desire to read that as the only provision in the document appears to be a motivated one. The document lays out other rights, which naturally may be in conflict with each other at times, a fact that is explicitly acknowledged in Article 29. I don't object to disagreeing with Victoria's balancing of the various rights, but I do object to the assertion that it's somehow a clear violation of human rights for them to prioritize the rights to life and health over the right to employment.
        roenxi 5y ago
        > The document lays out other rights, which naturally may be in conflict with each other at times Ok, so we've taken away all these rights from unvaxxed people. What rights do you believe this has that allowed others to exercise? Because from where I sit: 1. It doesn't reduce the odds of people getting COVID. We just had ... probably between 2-3 million COVID cases between NSW and Victoria, both with highly vaccinated populations. That is only possible if vaccinated people are infecting each other (as most reporting I've read suggests is happening). 2. Doesn't otherwise affect anyone's rights. Note that there isn't even a right not to get sick from time to time. Although it even if such a right did somehow exist it isn't obvious how an unvaxxed person would be affecting your right to excercise ti since the problem is how much you come into contact with other humans vs anything any other individual is doing. There has been no threat to our hospital systems at any point that justifies what has been done to the unvaxxed. The pressure the hospital system has come under appears to be from the COVID restrictions (and, ironically, probably things like laying off workers for resisting the unreasonable vaccination policies - although if they've got the capacity to start sacking people then they clearly don't see a problem). So it seems to me that we're doing this just for fun / for the joy of being authoritarian. And your damn right the reasoning is motivated. Motivated by a desire to let people earn money and make their lives better at will. To be able to go places and visit friens and family without being arrested. To make their own medical decisions. These are reasonable motivations. These rights are the easy ones with practical justifications.
jahnu 5y ago
Why would you set up a straw man that you don't even know the definition of yourself? For me ending the pandemic is a return to regular life and a health care system that is no longer stretched beyond typical capacity. This can be achieved by many outcomes but the most likely one given the state of the world today is getting everyone to take the safe and effective vaccine for as long as necessary.

alexandre_m 5y ago

While we can argue about what are the boundaries for human rights in 1st world countries, it's important to know there have been some very strict and harsh policies regarding Covid in different parts of the world. In Quebec where I live, the unvaccinated are now barred from entry in large retail stores like Walmart and Costco. If you don't have your vaccine passport with you that shows you're vaccinated in these places, then you can't enter, even for groceries. There was curfew in place that prevented everyone from being outside during the evenings and nights for the most part of January. On top of that, the prime minister said publicly in the media that the unvaccinated would start paying an additional tax, even though health care is supposed to be free and accessible for everyone here. The government just backtracked about this the last couple of days. A lot of these policies are extreme and have shown to be completely incoherent and not backed by science, given what we know about the virus since the last couple of months.