5 ms·

> Would that not have justified a lockdown? No, not even a 100% mortality rate justifies a lockdown Movement of individuals (as long as he/she is not moving i

> Would that not have justified a lockdown? No, not even a 100% mortality rate justifies a lockdown Movement of individuals (as long as he/she is not moving into your home/territory etc.) is IMO a sacred 'right' that one must offer one's fellow humans. It's a slippery slope if a dire situation however real is used as a justification for a lockdown.

sangnoir 3y ago
After reading your comment, I have a better understanding of the thoughts that may be going through the mind of "Tuberculosis Tammy", who has infectious TB and has been on the run from isolation/treatment since January 2022[1]. I disagree with the concept that individual freedoms trumps the safety of other's, as does society at large, which deems some level of negligence to be criminal. I hope the next pandemic has a short incubation period and ultra-high mortality. 1. https://arstechnica.com/health/2023/05/fugitive-with-untreated-tuberculosis-continues-to-stump-law-enforcement/ https://arstechnica.com/health/2023/05/fugitive-with-untreat...
- eastbound 3y ago
  > individual freedoms trumps the safety of other's See, you’re using the fallacy, right here. We can still do both.
  - sangnoir 3y ago
    > We can still do both. I was hoping you'd explain in more detail, so I wont have to assume what your reasoning. By "do both", were you perhaps referring to measures like masks mandates while allowing people move freely? Unsurprisingly, some people felt mandates violated the sanctity of their individual rights too.
    - dennis_jeeves1 3y ago
      >I was hoping you'd explain in more detail, so I wont have to assume what your reasoning. By "do both", sangnoir, Think really hard and you will be able to come up with something (where 'both' can be done). If you cannot come up with anything then I'd say that even having a discourse with someone who can potentially come up with something is pointless because of the wide chasm.
cortesoft 3y ago
I think it is a slippery slope to say that freedom of movement trumps all other rights. No one has the right to kill me and my children just so they can exercise their right to go wherever they want whenever they want.
- dennis_jeeves1 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - dang 3y ago
    We have to ban accounts that post like this, no matter how incorrectly someone else read a comment, so if you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
    - dennis_jeeves1 3y ago
      [flagged]
- drukenemo 3y ago
  You can lockdown your children and not expose them to the ones who choose risking being exposed. Can’t you?
- dent9876543 3y ago
  But freedom of movement does trump your right. At least as far as COVID is concerned, and that's because COVID isn't a realistic concern for most children. There are people (children, but also others) for whom it is a marked concern, and appropriate risk mitigation strategies should be taking. Working with the gung-ho assumption that all spaces are essentially risk free would represent a fail in your duty of care.
  - cortesoft 3y ago
    I was not necessarily talking about Covid, but about a hypothetical worse pandemic with a much higher fatality rate. The person I replied to said there would be no situation worth restricting freedom of movement for, no matter how deadly the disease.
lucubratory 3y ago
This is really interesting. So you would genuinely be okay with with the death of something like 99% of the human population, because government imposed lockdowns are worse? Because that's what a 100% mortality rate COVID means without NPIs, 90-95% of people dead from the virus directly and almost all of the rest dead because society had collapsed around them. I am absolutely fascinated by the kind of person that can genuinely believe that, is it a sort of extreme libertarianism? Or maybe an ecological thing, you think the death of humanity would be a genuinely good thing and this 100% mortality COVID would just be a means to an end?
- dennis_jeeves1 3y ago
  >okay with with the death of something like 99% of the human population No, certainly not. I want people to make their own informed choices. It can be heart-wrenching for oneself to observe people make (what you think) an obvious wrong choice, but if you had any any life experiences of substance, you will realize that all you can do is give people the most accurate information that you have, but you should never, ever impose your decision (even if it's for the person's good) if the person does not consent to it. One could probably make an exception for very young kids. Like they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Side note: who exactly decides what is good for the individual?
  - lucubratory 3y ago
    >No, certainly not. I want people to make their own informed choices. These are two contradictory sentences. Wanting people to make their own informed choices unimpinged by government action while a virus with the transmissibility of COVID and a 100% fatality rate exists is definitionally being okay with the death of 99% of the human population. Like, that is the outcome so by definition if you're in favour of only dealing with pandemics through personal responsibility and you're saying that would be the case even with a virus with the transmissibility of COVID and a 100% fatality rate, then you are saying that the death of 99% of people in existence is an acceptable outcome. What I am asking is why you believe that.
    - 3y ago

sangnoir 3y ago

After reading your comment, I have a better understanding of the thoughts that may be going through the mind of "Tuberculosis Tammy", who has infectious TB and has been on the run from isolation/treatment since January 2022[1]. I disagree with the concept that individual freedoms trumps the safety of other's, as does society at large, which deems some level of negligence to be criminal. I hope the next pandemic has a short incubation period and ultra-high mortality. 1. https://arstechnica.com/health/2023/05/fugitive-with-untreated-tuberculosis-continues-to-stump-law-enforcement/ https://arstechnica.com/health/2023/05/fugitive-with-untreat...

eastbound 3y ago
> individual freedoms trumps the safety of other's See, you’re using the fallacy, right here. We can still do both.
- sangnoir 3y ago
  > We can still do both. I was hoping you'd explain in more detail, so I wont have to assume what your reasoning. By "do both", were you perhaps referring to measures like masks mandates while allowing people move freely? Unsurprisingly, some people felt mandates violated the sanctity of their individual rights too.
  - dennis_jeeves1 3y ago
    >I was hoping you'd explain in more detail, so I wont have to assume what your reasoning. By "do both", sangnoir, Think really hard and you will be able to come up with something (where 'both' can be done). If you cannot come up with anything then I'd say that even having a discourse with someone who can potentially come up with something is pointless because of the wide chasm.

cortesoft 3y ago

I think it is a slippery slope to say that freedom of movement trumps all other rights. No one has the right to kill me and my children just so they can exercise their right to go wherever they want whenever they want.

dennis_jeeves1 3y ago
[flagged]
- dang 3y ago
  We have to ban accounts that post like this, no matter how incorrectly someone else read a comment, so if you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
  - dennis_jeeves1 3y ago
    [flagged]
drukenemo 3y ago
You can lockdown your children and not expose them to the ones who choose risking being exposed. Can’t you?
dent9876543 3y ago
But freedom of movement does trump your right. At least as far as COVID is concerned, and that's because COVID isn't a realistic concern for most children. There are people (children, but also others) for whom it is a marked concern, and appropriate risk mitigation strategies should be taking. Working with the gung-ho assumption that all spaces are essentially risk free would represent a fail in your duty of care.
- cortesoft 3y ago
  I was not necessarily talking about Covid, but about a hypothetical worse pandemic with a much higher fatality rate. The person I replied to said there would be no situation worth restricting freedom of movement for, no matter how deadly the disease.

lucubratory 3y ago

This is really interesting. So you would genuinely be okay with with the death of something like 99% of the human population, because government imposed lockdowns are worse? Because that's what a 100% mortality rate COVID means without NPIs, 90-95% of people dead from the virus directly and almost all of the rest dead because society had collapsed around them. I am absolutely fascinated by the kind of person that can genuinely believe that, is it a sort of extreme libertarianism? Or maybe an ecological thing, you think the death of humanity would be a genuinely good thing and this 100% mortality COVID would just be a means to an end?

dennis_jeeves1 3y ago
>okay with with the death of something like 99% of the human population No, certainly not. I want people to make their own informed choices. It can be heart-wrenching for oneself to observe people make (what you think) an obvious wrong choice, but if you had any any life experiences of substance, you will realize that all you can do is give people the most accurate information that you have, but you should never, ever impose your decision (even if it's for the person's good) if the person does not consent to it. One could probably make an exception for very young kids. Like they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Side note: who exactly decides what is good for the individual?
- lucubratory 3y ago
  >No, certainly not. I want people to make their own informed choices. These are two contradictory sentences. Wanting people to make their own informed choices unimpinged by government action while a virus with the transmissibility of COVID and a 100% fatality rate exists is definitionally being okay with the death of 99% of the human population. Like, that is the outcome so by definition if you're in favour of only dealing with pandemics through personal responsibility and you're saying that would be the case even with a virus with the transmissibility of COVID and a 100% fatality rate, then you are saying that the death of 99% of people in existence is an acceptable outcome. What I am asking is why you believe that.
  - 3y ago