4 ms·

Your 'civil liberties' are arguing for positive rights, which are fundamentally different than advocating for existing negative rights. Positive rights are you

Your 'civil liberties' are arguing for positive rights, which are fundamentally different than advocating for existing negative rights. Positive rights are your assertion that you have the right to action from another group. In general, medicine is one area where positive and negative rights conflict regularly. For example, imagine abortion, assisted suicide, or emergency care during a pandemic. Some of these are solved by employment contracts -- as an ER doctor you are accepting to be bound by people's positive right to emergency medical care. However, your assertion is that society et large should be bound by your positive right. You should have a very strong case for this. Do you?

ceejayoz 5y ago
> You should have a very strong case for this. Do you? In the US, we've made this call already: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_with_Disabilities_Act_of_1990 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_with_Disabilities_Ac...
- nostrebored 5y ago
  This is neither an employer-employee relationship nor an accessibility requirement. You know this because you did not have an established mask mandate or legal requirements for facilities to validate that patrons were not ill. Either of these would infringe on the rights of other groups. Like it or not, there are established groups of people who are unable to wear masks. The other route of validating that customers are not sick would paradoxically infringe on the rights of the immunosuppressed.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    > You know this because you did not have an established mask mandate or legal requirements for facilities to validate that patrons were not ill. A COVID test before entering every facility would probably not be a reasonable accommodation. I'm of the opinion that a Federal mask mandate in public spaces could probably have been justified under the ADA - anywhere that can be forced to have an accessible bathroom, access ramps, etc. > Like it or not, there are established groups of people who are unable to wear masks. Balancing that would similarly be an ADA question. A lot of people claimed to be in this category, but attempts to use the ADA to bypass state-level mask mandates tended to flop.
    - nostrebored 5y ago
      What is the reasoning behind your claim? Frankly the risk to the immunocompromised does not appear to have been that high. Countries like South Africa, which have nearly a thirty percent HIV positive rate, did not see substantially different outcomes. Beyond that, we had pre-existing data that masks don't do much. Post hoc analysis and wishful thinking have contributed to a modern round of pseudoscience claiming that masks are effective. When the dust settles, I think we'll see that well-fitted N95s are just about the only effective prevention measure. But, as I'm suspecting you know, this would not constitute a reasonable accommodation. In industries that require it, mask fitting and regular testing are commonplace. Further, fitted N95s can only be worn safely for a short duration. On the other hand, I think that what the ADA should mandate is proper ventilation systems in these heavily trafficked areas. I do think that this is similar to what we've seen for accessibility requirements for businesses, and frankly a bizarre untackled problem for public health.
      - ceejayoz 5y ago
        > But, as I'm suspecting you know, this would not constitute a reasonable accommodation. I disagree. We agree on many of the same facts - better masks are important, as is ventilation - but not, apparently, the approaches those facts inform. The "as I'm suspecting you know" shit is rude; in this case, for example, some other countries (correctly) don't count cloth masks as legit. We should've done that, too, way back in 2020. Re: South Africa, it's a young population, and being HIV+ alone doesn't make you inherently immunosuppressed if treated effectively - which SA is quite good at.
        nostrebored 5y ago
        I mean purely as reasonable accommodation is defined by the ADA. Sorry, it looks like my 'as I'm suspecting you know' landed differently than I intended. I meant that you seem to be aware of ADA requirements. For example, requiring a workplace to provide an employee who requires it an N95 mask very clearly falls under the 'reasonable accommodation' category. However, requiring all employees or patrons to wear N95 masks does not track with other examples of reasonable accommodations.
dhosek 5y ago
Your 'civil liberties' demand that I not shoot my gun at you is a violation of my right to bear arms. How dare you demand action from me to protect your rights? After all, my rights are right there in the constitution.
- nostrebored 5y ago
  No, that’s very clearly a negative right.

ceejayoz 5y ago

> You should have a very strong case for this. Do you? In the US, we've made this call already: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_with_Disabilities_Act_of_1990 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_with_Disabilities_Ac...

nostrebored 5y ago
This is neither an employer-employee relationship nor an accessibility requirement. You know this because you did not have an established mask mandate or legal requirements for facilities to validate that patrons were not ill. Either of these would infringe on the rights of other groups. Like it or not, there are established groups of people who are unable to wear masks. The other route of validating that customers are not sick would paradoxically infringe on the rights of the immunosuppressed.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  > You know this because you did not have an established mask mandate or legal requirements for facilities to validate that patrons were not ill. A COVID test before entering every facility would probably not be a reasonable accommodation. I'm of the opinion that a Federal mask mandate in public spaces could probably have been justified under the ADA - anywhere that can be forced to have an accessible bathroom, access ramps, etc. > Like it or not, there are established groups of people who are unable to wear masks. Balancing that would similarly be an ADA question. A lot of people claimed to be in this category, but attempts to use the ADA to bypass state-level mask mandates tended to flop.
  - nostrebored 5y ago
    What is the reasoning behind your claim? Frankly the risk to the immunocompromised does not appear to have been that high. Countries like South Africa, which have nearly a thirty percent HIV positive rate, did not see substantially different outcomes. Beyond that, we had pre-existing data that masks don't do much. Post hoc analysis and wishful thinking have contributed to a modern round of pseudoscience claiming that masks are effective. When the dust settles, I think we'll see that well-fitted N95s are just about the only effective prevention measure. But, as I'm suspecting you know, this would not constitute a reasonable accommodation. In industries that require it, mask fitting and regular testing are commonplace. Further, fitted N95s can only be worn safely for a short duration. On the other hand, I think that what the ADA should mandate is proper ventilation systems in these heavily trafficked areas. I do think that this is similar to what we've seen for accessibility requirements for businesses, and frankly a bizarre untackled problem for public health.
    - ceejayoz 5y ago
      > But, as I'm suspecting you know, this would not constitute a reasonable accommodation. I disagree. We agree on many of the same facts - better masks are important, as is ventilation - but not, apparently, the approaches those facts inform. The "as I'm suspecting you know" shit is rude; in this case, for example, some other countries (correctly) don't count cloth masks as legit. We should've done that, too, way back in 2020. Re: South Africa, it's a young population, and being HIV+ alone doesn't make you inherently immunosuppressed if treated effectively - which SA is quite good at.
      - nostrebored 5y ago
        I mean purely as reasonable accommodation is defined by the ADA. Sorry, it looks like my 'as I'm suspecting you know' landed differently than I intended. I meant that you seem to be aware of ADA requirements. For example, requiring a workplace to provide an employee who requires it an N95 mask very clearly falls under the 'reasonable accommodation' category. However, requiring all employees or patrons to wear N95 masks does not track with other examples of reasonable accommodations.

dhosek 5y ago

Your 'civil liberties' demand that I not shoot my gun at you is a violation of my right to bear arms. How dare you demand action from me to protect your rights? After all, my rights are right there in the constitution.

nostrebored 5y ago
No, that’s very clearly a negative right.