3 ms·

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 exercis

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.
base698 3y ago
If you're of child rearing age your risk of dying was like driving 10,000 miles. Also, you're delegating your responsibility to the "other". As other posters mentioned if that level of risk is unacceptable you can choose to take measures that bring the risk more inline with whatever tolerance you have. Some of us are more afraid of an all powerful state using any excuse to further their own interests.
- cortesoft 3y ago
  I was not talking about Covid, the person I replied to said there would be no possible disease that would justify lockdowns.

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.

base698 3y ago

If you're of child rearing age your risk of dying was like driving 10,000 miles. Also, you're delegating your responsibility to the "other". As other posters mentioned if that level of risk is unacceptable you can choose to take measures that bring the risk more inline with whatever tolerance you have. Some of us are more afraid of an all powerful state using any excuse to further their own interests.

cortesoft 3y ago
I was not talking about Covid, the person I replied to said there would be no possible disease that would justify lockdowns.