7 ms·

We just endured a pandemic in which we (100% of Americans) were compelled to comply with public health directives. The disease killed 0.3% of the population.

We just endured a pandemic in which we (100% of Americans) were compelled to comply with public health directives. The disease killed 0.3% of the population. I wore my mask, and a majority felt that compliance was the necessary and humane thing to do. But some-as much as 45% of the adult population-felt very uncomfortable with having to comply, for whatever reason. But the rule was firm, and those who wouldn’t comply were shamed for their obstinance. Over the same period, roughly 0.1% of the population died from drug overdoses, and roughly the same number are homeless with mental illness. As a society, and morally and ethically sound individuals, we have to be consistent about what is best for public health. Dangerous people living in squalor on public streets using dangerous drugs or failing to take the necessary medications to alleviate mental health disease is a public health problem-not an individual rights matter. It’s not fair to the people having to live near them, and it’s not fair to our society.

robotresearcher 4y ago
First, I agree that mental health and homelessness are serious public health problems. We didn’t mask and isolate because 0.3% of Americans died. We did it so that only 0.3% of Americans would die. I’m not sure how the response to the drug epidemic and the infectious respiratory pandemic could be ‘consistent’.
- jschveibinz 4y ago
  Please allow me to clarify. First, it is not clear that wearing masks had much if any of an effect on reducing deaths during the pandemic. The science is not definitive. Isolation was probably a much stronger factor; but again, not necessarily causative. With respect to how the drug epidemic and the pandemic are compared: my point was that a majority of people were compelled to comply in the case of the pandemic for the greater good, so it is not unreasonable to compel a small minority of people to comply for the greater good. In both cases, those who are compelled to comply are theoretically receiving advice and services that are for their own good according to science and common sense. I also recognize that “homelessness” is a catch-all phrase that is abused, and that roughly half of the homeless are not suffering from mental illness or drug addiction. So the solutions to these problems are distinct. My only appeal to those reading this is to consider the big picture and to consider solutions that are best for all of society. This is a democratic approach.
  - habinero 4y ago
    I just want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly. Are you equating wearing a small piece of cloth -- something all of us are already legally required to do outdoors -- with jailing and forced treatment of the homeless?
    - mixmastamyk 4y ago
      Are you equating abject neglect of society's responsibilities of caring for our fellow humans with freedom?
      - magicalist 4y ago
        That question only makes sense if you beg the question and assume that the only way to fulfill "society's responsibilities of caring for our fellow humans" is "jailing and forced treatment", otherwise it's just a rhetorical bit with no substance. The GP's question was obviously baiting but also follows logically.
        mixmastamyk 4y ago
        That’s your/gparent’s phrasing, not mine. I’ve actually worked in a mental hospital, and it was 100x better and more humane than the freedom to die from the elements and/or eat from garbage cans while yelling at no one in particular.
      - habinero 4y ago
        Of course not. I'm pointing out people upset with a small mandated inconvenience are completely fine with the imprisonment and forced medication of others.
        mixmastamyk 4y ago
        [dead]
kerkeslager 4y ago
This is a particularly uncompassionate take, particularly with you lumping homelessness into this. The vast majority of homeless are not homeless by choice. Homeless people turn down shelters because shelters aren't homes, and are often legitimately worse than being outside. Programs which have offered the homeless real homes, with privacy, the ability to safely store belongings and keep pets, and the ability to decorate, cook, and sleep in quiet, have not had any difficulty filling those homes, but these programs are few and far between (none exist in the US, that I know of). The solution to homelessness is homes, period. Not shelters, homes. Nothing else will work. Mental health treatment is utterly ineffective when the patients are suffering the ongoing trauma of homelessness, and any system which places mental health as a prerequisite to having a home will not work. As such, whatever forceful mental health treatment you're proposing as a solution to your fear of the homeless, is not going to actually solve your problem. If the homeless are removed from the streets and forcibly medicated, they'll end up in the same spot doing the same thing as soon as they're dumped back into the world without any real help. If you actually want a solution that works, you're going to have to grow a little compassion and start trying to actually help the homeless instead of only thinking about how to keep yourself safe from the homeless.
- bnralt 4y ago
  > Homeless people turn down shelters because shelters aren't homes, and are often legitimately worse than being outside. I keep hearing that homeless avoid shelters because of how dangerous the people are there[1]. And that’s a legitimate point. But then people completely wipe that point from their memory when they say “Just move these people to apartments, there will be no problem.” If other homeless are saying that many of these individuals are too dangerous to be around, we shouldn’t be surprised if people who live in apartments feel the same way. [1] https://www.npr.org/2012/12/06/166666265/why-some-homeless-choose-the-streets-over-shelters https://www.npr.org/2012/12/06/166666265/why-some-homeless-c...
  - neon_electro 4y ago
    "...that shelters are dangerous places, that they're full of drugs and drug dealers, that people will steal your shoes, and there's bedbugs and body lice." From your [1]. The reasoning is that dangerous people exist in homeless shelters NOT because those people are homeless, but because people can exist who want to take advantage of homeless people, whether those people are homeless themselves or not. Your conclusion that homeless people living in apartments can cause the same reaction based on their previous homelessness and no other quality isn't a logical one.
hotpotamus 4y ago
I saw far lower than 100% of Americans actually comply with public health directives, and if those who think being made to wear a piece of cloth over their face or take a vaccination is an unacceptable loss of freedom, I can only imagine the violation of being held against their will and forced to take psychotropic medication. I actually don't really disagree with your premise, but it (like solving most any problem) does not seem possible in modern America.
vkou 4y ago
> We just endured a pandemic in which we (100% of Americans) were compelled to comply with public health directives. Nonsense. Absolute, utter nonsense. I'm not sure why we are all of a sudden rewriting history. 100% of Americans were asked to comply with a range of public health directives. Actual enforcement and compulsion of the public ranged from non-existent (In most of the country) to symbolic (In a few coastal cities). A significant fraction[1] loudly, and very prominently refused to comply. They got their way. An even bigger fraction complied in an incredibly half-assed manner. As of today, a mere 16% of the US population has had an updated booster vaccine. Only 70% of the population has completed the first vaccination series (But hey, 81% got their first shot, so at least that's something...) [1] Much of that same fraction, of course, has no issue with inflicting involuntary mental health treatment - because it's directed at other people.
- mrguyorama 4y ago
  Many of those people even COMPARED WEARING A MASK AGAINST THEIR WILL TO THE HOLOCAUST.
- itsoktocry 4y ago
  >I'm not sure why we are all of a sudden rewriting history. Because history was being re-written in real-time, so people stopped being compliant. People started the pandemic voluntarily washing products they brought into their homes for crying out loud. Your facts agree: 81% got the initial vaccine, because people thought it would mean something.
- ifyoubuildit 4y ago
  > 100% of Americans were asked to comply with a range of public health directives. This seems a bit of a rewrite itself. A large portion of the american work force was told get in line or find a new way to feed and house your family. Some people like to helpfully point out that's technically not forcing anything, but it's certainly a little bit more than politely asking.
habinero 4y ago
I don't think I would call any of this take "moral" or "ethical", and in the future, I would suggest refraining from using those words to refer to yourself. Homeless people are rarely dangerous. They don't want trouble because they know the moment that happens the cops will descend on them for a bit of fun. They are easy prey for others. It's also disingenuous to suggest that mental illness is the sole cause of homelessness, or that mental illness can always be alleviated with meds. Neither are true.
- falcolas 4y ago
  Agreed. Over half of homeless people are employed. And many (most?) of those can't afford housing (and everything associated with housing) with their wages from that employment. Wages in comparison to the cost of living is an issue we also talk about, but we never connect the two.

robotresearcher 4y ago

First, I agree that mental health and homelessness are serious public health problems. We didn’t mask and isolate because 0.3% of Americans died. We did it so that only 0.3% of Americans would die. I’m not sure how the response to the drug epidemic and the infectious respiratory pandemic could be ‘consistent’.

jschveibinz 4y ago
Please allow me to clarify. First, it is not clear that wearing masks had much if any of an effect on reducing deaths during the pandemic. The science is not definitive. Isolation was probably a much stronger factor; but again, not necessarily causative. With respect to how the drug epidemic and the pandemic are compared: my point was that a majority of people were compelled to comply in the case of the pandemic for the greater good, so it is not unreasonable to compel a small minority of people to comply for the greater good. In both cases, those who are compelled to comply are theoretically receiving advice and services that are for their own good according to science and common sense. I also recognize that “homelessness” is a catch-all phrase that is abused, and that roughly half of the homeless are not suffering from mental illness or drug addiction. So the solutions to these problems are distinct. My only appeal to those reading this is to consider the big picture and to consider solutions that are best for all of society. This is a democratic approach.
- habinero 4y ago
  I just want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly. Are you equating wearing a small piece of cloth -- something all of us are already legally required to do outdoors -- with jailing and forced treatment of the homeless?
  - mixmastamyk 4y ago
    Are you equating abject neglect of society's responsibilities of caring for our fellow humans with freedom?
    - magicalist 4y ago
      That question only makes sense if you beg the question and assume that the only way to fulfill "society's responsibilities of caring for our fellow humans" is "jailing and forced treatment", otherwise it's just a rhetorical bit with no substance. The GP's question was obviously baiting but also follows logically.
      - mixmastamyk 4y ago
        That’s your/gparent’s phrasing, not mine. I’ve actually worked in a mental hospital, and it was 100x better and more humane than the freedom to die from the elements and/or eat from garbage cans while yelling at no one in particular.
    - habinero 4y ago
      Of course not. I'm pointing out people upset with a small mandated inconvenience are completely fine with the imprisonment and forced medication of others.
      - mixmastamyk 4y ago
        [dead]

kerkeslager 4y ago

This is a particularly uncompassionate take, particularly with you lumping homelessness into this. The vast majority of homeless are not homeless by choice. Homeless people turn down shelters because shelters aren't homes, and are often legitimately worse than being outside. Programs which have offered the homeless real homes, with privacy, the ability to safely store belongings and keep pets, and the ability to decorate, cook, and sleep in quiet, have not had any difficulty filling those homes, but these programs are few and far between (none exist in the US, that I know of). The solution to homelessness is homes, period. Not shelters, homes. Nothing else will work. Mental health treatment is utterly ineffective when the patients are suffering the ongoing trauma of homelessness, and any system which places mental health as a prerequisite to having a home will not work. As such, whatever forceful mental health treatment you're proposing as a solution to your fear of the homeless, is not going to actually solve your problem. If the homeless are removed from the streets and forcibly medicated, they'll end up in the same spot doing the same thing as soon as they're dumped back into the world without any real help. If you actually want a solution that works, you're going to have to grow a little compassion and start trying to actually help the homeless instead of only thinking about how to keep yourself safe from the homeless.

bnralt 4y ago
> Homeless people turn down shelters because shelters aren't homes, and are often legitimately worse than being outside. I keep hearing that homeless avoid shelters because of how dangerous the people are there[1]. And that’s a legitimate point. But then people completely wipe that point from their memory when they say “Just move these people to apartments, there will be no problem.” If other homeless are saying that many of these individuals are too dangerous to be around, we shouldn’t be surprised if people who live in apartments feel the same way. [1] https://www.npr.org/2012/12/06/166666265/why-some-homeless-choose-the-streets-over-shelters https://www.npr.org/2012/12/06/166666265/why-some-homeless-c...
- neon_electro 4y ago
  "...that shelters are dangerous places, that they're full of drugs and drug dealers, that people will steal your shoes, and there's bedbugs and body lice." From your [1]. The reasoning is that dangerous people exist in homeless shelters NOT because those people are homeless, but because people can exist who want to take advantage of homeless people, whether those people are homeless themselves or not. Your conclusion that homeless people living in apartments can cause the same reaction based on their previous homelessness and no other quality isn't a logical one.

hotpotamus 4y ago

I saw far lower than 100% of Americans actually comply with public health directives, and if those who think being made to wear a piece of cloth over their face or take a vaccination is an unacceptable loss of freedom, I can only imagine the violation of being held against their will and forced to take psychotropic medication. I actually don't really disagree with your premise, but it (like solving most any problem) does not seem possible in modern America.

vkou 4y ago

> We just endured a pandemic in which we (100% of Americans) were compelled to comply with public health directives. Nonsense. Absolute, utter nonsense. I'm not sure why we are all of a sudden rewriting history. 100% of Americans were asked to comply with a range of public health directives. Actual enforcement and compulsion of the public ranged from non-existent (In most of the country) to symbolic (In a few coastal cities). A significant fraction[1] loudly, and very prominently refused to comply. They got their way. An even bigger fraction complied in an incredibly half-assed manner. As of today, a mere 16% of the US population has had an updated booster vaccine. Only 70% of the population has completed the first vaccination series (But hey, 81% got their first shot, so at least that's something...) [1] Much of that same fraction, of course, has no issue with inflicting involuntary mental health treatment - because it's directed at other people.

mrguyorama 4y ago
Many of those people even COMPARED WEARING A MASK AGAINST THEIR WILL TO THE HOLOCAUST.
itsoktocry 4y ago
>I'm not sure why we are all of a sudden rewriting history. Because history was being re-written in real-time, so people stopped being compliant. People started the pandemic voluntarily washing products they brought into their homes for crying out loud. Your facts agree: 81% got the initial vaccine, because people thought it would mean something.
ifyoubuildit 4y ago
> 100% of Americans were asked to comply with a range of public health directives. This seems a bit of a rewrite itself. A large portion of the american work force was told get in line or find a new way to feed and house your family. Some people like to helpfully point out that's technically not forcing anything, but it's certainly a little bit more than politely asking.

habinero 4y ago

I don't think I would call any of this take "moral" or "ethical", and in the future, I would suggest refraining from using those words to refer to yourself. Homeless people are rarely dangerous. They don't want trouble because they know the moment that happens the cops will descend on them for a bit of fun. They are easy prey for others. It's also disingenuous to suggest that mental illness is the sole cause of homelessness, or that mental illness can always be alleviated with meds. Neither are true.

falcolas 4y ago
Agreed. Over half of homeless people are employed. And many (most?) of those can't afford housing (and everything associated with housing) with their wages from that employment. Wages in comparison to the cost of living is an issue we also talk about, but we never connect the two.