4 ms·

I don’t think it matters at all if it works or not. It shouldn’t be done. It’s basically a violation of basic human rights. I’d like to think even in our worst

I don’t think it matters at all if it works or not. It shouldn’t be done. It’s basically a violation of basic human rights. I’d like to think even in our worst of times, we’d respect basic human rights…

somewhereoutth 5y ago
But it isn't a violation of basic human rights. It is a community working together to protect itself from an 'invader' - much as we would see in places under attack by less invisible threats.
- spookthesunset 5y ago
  you have to get all of society to agree to your restrictions. By forcing people via mandates you are violating their human rights. Maybe their risk assessment is different? Maybe they value other things than you? Doesn’t matter, the fact they don’t agree with the restrictions should be respected. We have no right to do it. See also: this article. What is happening in china right now is just slightly more advanced than what many countries and states did for themselves.
- nradov 5y ago
  No that's incorrect. You appear to have made a category error. Protecting against a virus isn't a valid reason for violating the fundamental human right of free assembly. And no, there is no human right to be protected against the risk of disease.
  - sofixa 5y ago
    > Human rights include the right to life and liberty Literally the first one is to life. https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/human-rights#:~:text=Human%20rights%20include%20the%20right,to%20these%20rights%2C%20without%20discrimination https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/human-rights#:~:text=Hum....
    - mikem170 5y ago
      But is it ok to take away others' rights? The UDHR you linked to mentioned freedom from detention, freedom of movement, the right to peacefully assemble, to work, leisure, and education, and to participate in cultural life. All of these rights were negatively impacted by lockdowns which many people did not agree with. In the example of the pandemic: Would it have been better to offer support for the vulnerable (people with a 1 in 10 chance of dying if they caught it), rather than punish those who were not vulnerable (people with a 1 in 100,000 or greater chance of dying). When is it ok for one person's rights to come at the expense of others? Is it ok for a few politicians to decide to impose on a bunch of unwilling people to do something they don't want to do? Should we lockdown every year for the flu, because some people will die? Should we allow the majority to force their views on the minority becuase they believe it is for the greater good? I don't believe so. Not when there are other options.
      - whimsicalism 5y ago
        Sorry is the "freedom of movement" clause the one that is immediately followed by: > 3. The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant. Or is there some other clause you are referring to that this is actually violating?
        mikem170 5y ago
        The intention behind my reply was to say that the right to life is not the only right that people have, they have many others, and it is not a simple matter of saying one right some people want automatically gets priority at the expense of many other rights for many other people. I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding your comment. Are you saying that restricting rights to protect public health is more important than the right of freedom of movement and other rights? This is why I mentioned the flu as an example of how difficult it can be to draw a line. Why don't we lock down everyone for the flu every year? Is it because the numbers are different? People still die. Even when people agree on the numbers they don't interpret the risk the same. Some people don't think covid was that big a deal, certainly not worth the impact lockdowns had on everyone. And I also mentioned the idea of helping protect the vulnerable without punishing those who don't feel they are vulnerable. I think a lot more could have been done in this regard. I just don't get why some people feel justified imposing on the rights of others when there are other approaches. Different values, I suppose.

somewhereoutth 5y ago

But it isn't a violation of basic human rights. It is a community working together to protect itself from an 'invader' - much as we would see in places under attack by less invisible threats.

spookthesunset 5y ago
you have to get all of society to agree to your restrictions. By forcing people via mandates you are violating their human rights. Maybe their risk assessment is different? Maybe they value other things than you? Doesn’t matter, the fact they don’t agree with the restrictions should be respected. We have no right to do it. See also: this article. What is happening in china right now is just slightly more advanced than what many countries and states did for themselves.
nradov 5y ago
No that's incorrect. You appear to have made a category error. Protecting against a virus isn't a valid reason for violating the fundamental human right of free assembly. And no, there is no human right to be protected against the risk of disease.
- sofixa 5y ago
  > Human rights include the right to life and liberty Literally the first one is to life. https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/human-rights#:~:text=Human%20rights%20include%20the%20right,to%20these%20rights%2C%20without%20discrimination https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/human-rights#:~:text=Hum....
  - mikem170 5y ago
    But is it ok to take away others' rights? The UDHR you linked to mentioned freedom from detention, freedom of movement, the right to peacefully assemble, to work, leisure, and education, and to participate in cultural life. All of these rights were negatively impacted by lockdowns which many people did not agree with. In the example of the pandemic: Would it have been better to offer support for the vulnerable (people with a 1 in 10 chance of dying if they caught it), rather than punish those who were not vulnerable (people with a 1 in 100,000 or greater chance of dying). When is it ok for one person's rights to come at the expense of others? Is it ok for a few politicians to decide to impose on a bunch of unwilling people to do something they don't want to do? Should we lockdown every year for the flu, because some people will die? Should we allow the majority to force their views on the minority becuase they believe it is for the greater good? I don't believe so. Not when there are other options.
    - whimsicalism 5y ago
      Sorry is the "freedom of movement" clause the one that is immediately followed by: > 3. The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant. Or is there some other clause you are referring to that this is actually violating?
      - mikem170 5y ago
        The intention behind my reply was to say that the right to life is not the only right that people have, they have many others, and it is not a simple matter of saying one right some people want automatically gets priority at the expense of many other rights for many other people. I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding your comment. Are you saying that restricting rights to protect public health is more important than the right of freedom of movement and other rights? This is why I mentioned the flu as an example of how difficult it can be to draw a line. Why don't we lock down everyone for the flu every year? Is it because the numbers are different? People still die. Even when people agree on the numbers they don't interpret the risk the same. Some people don't think covid was that big a deal, certainly not worth the impact lockdowns had on everyone. And I also mentioned the idea of helping protect the vulnerable without punishing those who don't feel they are vulnerable. I think a lot more could have been done in this regard. I just don't get why some people feel justified imposing on the rights of others when there are other approaches. Different values, I suppose.