Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Reblogged:It Is Not 'Self-Interest' to Take Illness Lightly

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 344
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Defiant Michigan UP cafe owner told to shut down after serving indoor diners Since November, bars and restaurants in Michigan have been limited to carry-out service or outdoor dining in an effort

This graph may be out of date, it is certain those percentages have fallen further - but what it illustrates is just who are being sacrificed to whom. I.e.: The top half to the bottom half of people.

Interacting with people in public without any symptoms of disease or infection isn’t dangerous to the public. The masks worn by the majority of the public have little or no medical efficacy. The

I'd assume everyone who has so far contributed to this conversation has a general understanding of biology, I'll just go ahead and count myself as one.

Viruses 'travel' through populations and there is in a very real practical sense, nothing that can be done about the spread. If the entire population were to maneuver around in positive pressure suits we may be able to slow spread to very appreciable amounts, but given the time, resources and energies required that solution is for all purposes impossible.

So in the real everyday modern world, does social distancing @6 feet and cloth face coverings have an appreciable effect on spread ? I lean toward the effort not being worth it. Avoiding all human contact via self isolation would be the best approach sans special equipment for particulate filtration. 

The gist of the conversation , seems more geared toward what actions are required from individuals in order to be considered acting morally toward fellows. If requiring individuals to take heavily burdensome actions in some shared sense of safety is a moral and legitimate aim, is it for every instance of communicable disease or just 'this' one?( Notwithstanding any actions one may want to employ geared toward their own personal 'safety'.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

This is hardly actionable, and certainly not in the same sense of vehicular manslaughter or negligent homicide.

Reckless driving that can't be proven to have done any harm should carry no civil liability and should have a lesser criminal penalty than vehicular homicide.

Remedies for physical aggressions should vary according to their severity and any other relevant considerations.

Physical aggressions of different natures and severities may still be relevant to one another for the purpose of clarifying principles.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, whYNOT said:

DM, you would have it that children would all be masked up too, I guess. Not because they are at much more than the least risk, but because they must protect any one who may be? You must have seen them, or know of a few. Look at them out in that dangerous place called "In Public", their large eyes appearing over their masks, their paranoid parents having warned them, and nagging them, don't touch that; don't play with those kids; don't approach those adults. What kind of curious, inquiring, happy go lucky lives are they enjoying? You said I exaggerate the psychological consequences. Truth is I haven't touched the surface, but here's one stab of prediction. For anything up to the next 50 years today's children will be lining up outside psychotherapists rooms and probably addicted to all manner of substances.  And paranoid over their own kids, and... and so on. The far-reaching psychological costs for a society amount also to sacrifices.

If some parents are bungling this, that does not change the principles involved.

If a grandparent dies because a child brought Covid-19 home, how will the loss of a grandparent affect the child now, and how will the child be affected later when it realizes it may have contributed to that death?

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

Viruses 'travel' through populations and there is in a very real practical sense, nothing that can be done about the spread.

Here's an admittedly extreme example of that sort of reasoning.  Serial killers operate as secretively as they can and there is in a very real practical sense, nothing that can be done about a serial killer until it becomes apparent that there is one.  It would probably be possible to dream up ridiculous, impossible, excessive measures that might be of some effectiveness in countering serial killers.  But law enforcement still needs to take serial killers seriously and to watch out for them, and ordinary citizens still need to be reasonably careful about strangers and dangerous situations.

23 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

So in the real everyday modern world, does social distancing @6 feet and cloth face coverings have an appreciable effect on spread ? I lean toward the effort not being worth it.

There are two different issues to sort out.

1.  How effective are masking and social distancing for this particular pandemic?

2.  What points of principle are relevant to the issue of physically aggressing by increasing the risk of the spread of disease?

28 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

heavily burdensome actions

Lockdowns are heavily burdensome, and the more so the longer they last.

Masking and social distancing are not heavily burdensome.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We're celebrating Thanksgiving amid a pandemic. Here's how we did it in 1918 – and what happened next

San Francisco had one of the nation's largest anti-masking campaigns, spearheaded by the Anti-Mask League of San Francisco, according to Howard Markel, a professor of the history of medicine at the University of Michigan and co-editor-in chief of The American Influenza Epidemic of 1918-1919. Many people refused to wear masks and were arrested, and when the "line into the courtroom was so long, they laid off arresting people because the system couldn’t enforce it," Markel said.

Of course, you can't exactly tell a virus what to do. Some governments count on the citizens to do what is right and best for themselves, and merely made them aware that the CoViD-19 virus is in the geographical location.

An additional, more proper governmental response would be (or have been) to impose quarantine on those who have tested positive for the virus.

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to post
Share on other sites

The level of burden is relative and any is more than none. Asthmatic individuals can suffer adversely from breathing restrictions and care givers of the non-ambulatory disabled  can not maintain distance.

I find the level of compliance to be heavily burdensome just by virtue of the annoyance, my quality of life is affected by regulation and not the biology. One is and should be avoidable. Given the level of medical knowledge and technologies and a better current understanding of the China Death Plague almost all responses from government is overblown and it is becoming increasingly obvious purposefully so.

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

Asthmatic individuals can suffer adversely from breathing restrictions and care givers of the non-ambulatory disabled  can not maintain distance.

Any rules should make reasonable allowance for such things.

29 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

I find the level of compliance to be heavily burdensome just by virtue of the annoyance

If the problem is that you're annoyed, maybe you should learn not to let things get to your emotions so much.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can make allowances for any rules, as long as you are the rule maker.

The question is whether or not these rules , the masking and the social distancing rules in place in the USA in 2020 are in anyway beneficial to anyone's health and well being. Personally I believe they are being imposed as a means of control, a way to train the populace for compliance.

And it's working, a year ago if someone said the government were going to confiscate most privately held businesses and obliterate the middle class they would have been derided as paranoid. Now that it's happening , few are doing anything about it.

Edited by tadmjones
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

The question is whether or not these rules , the masking and the social distancing rules in place in the USA in 2020 are in anyway beneficial to anyone's health and well being. Personally I believe they are being imposed as a means of control, a way to train the populace for compliance.

And it's working, a year ago if someone said the government were going to confiscate most privately held businesses and obliterate the middle class they would have been derided as paranoid. Now that it's happening , few are doing anything about it.

Exaggeration and paranoia.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

If some parents are bungling this, that does not change the principles involved.

If a grandparent dies because a child brought Covid-19 home, how will the loss of a grandparent affect the child now, and how will the child be affected later when it realizes it may have contributed to that death?

Even could and will occur now, as  maximum preventative measures stand. A child will easily touch something, and bring the infection home.

But this gets rather quibbly and omnisicent.

Who is responsible? If my parent I am caring for in isolation dies as a result of (who knows?) my child? contracting the virus, I am hardly going to tell her she may have contributed to grannie's death. "See, you wouldn't listen to being told to use the sanitizer and now grannie's gone". Talk about psychological damage. I as adult and caretaker didn't do a perfect job, end of story.

This is all part of the guilt and shame and duty to and responsibility for others that the longevity of the sacrificial doctrine feeds upon.

In the normal days of "normal" flu epidemics, before most westerners got so obsessive-compulsive and micro-controlling, it would just be a case of "I'm afraid Granny got sick and died, darling". That is still the healthy way.

Contrasting the above, one can state quite certainly (without prescience) that many children being raised in this climate of one's committed responsibility to others' lives (while not comprehending any of these complex matters that are being contested in this thread) will end up: a. with a malevolent universe premise; b. are losing a stage in their vital, early exposure to reality; c. have absorbed dependence, rather than essential mind- independence. d. likely will have low self-esteem in later life. These are things philosophical and ethical, and naturally, psychological too.

Weigh up the minor risk you mention with these major factors, and judge for yourself, DM.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, tadmjones said:

You can make allowances for any rules, as long as you are the rule maker.

The question is whether or not these rules , the masking and the social distancing rules in place in the USA in 2020 are in anyway beneficial to anyone's health and well being. Personally I believe they are being imposed as a means of control, a way to train the populace for compliance.

 

Not even paranoid. There can be no doubt then and now, that the coronavirus panic was heavily promoted, then politicized. Instead of a (moral) non-partisan suspension of differences to the threat for the sake of all Americans, what did you see? Exacerbated divisiveness from the Dems.

Train the populace for compliance?

"It is your minds they want". AR

(Forced compliance and obedience and politicization of the pandemic was and is clearly observed and remarked upon here in SA: but instead, to entrench the recently-diminishing authoritarian ruling party's power through lockdown controls, than to change ruling parties).

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

Of course, you can't exactly tell a virus what to do. Some governments count on the citizens to do what is right and best for themselves, and merely made them aware that the CoViD-19 virus is in the geographical location.

An additional, more proper governmental response would be (or have been) to impose quarantine on those who have tested positive for the virus.

I think not even testing, let alone imposed quarantines, is the business of (at least, semi-free) gvts. (Assuming a self-responsible populace). Of course one should be able to privately test oneself, or volunteer to being tested by scientific research bodies.

I made a case for selective and voluntary self-protection, and there's where the Gvt needs to be strongly advising and recommending, no more.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, whYNOT said:

I think not even testing, let alone imposed quarantines, is the business of (at least, semi-free) gvts. (Assuming a self-responsible populace). Of course one should be able to test oneself, or voluntarily agree to being tested by scientific research bodies.

I made a case for selective and voluntary self-protection, and there's where the Gvt needs to be strongly advising and recommending, no more.

In the actions of a criminal, locking them up is to remove them from the community allowed to act freely.

The thought behind an imposed quarantine is similar. If an individual is known to have a deadly disease, removing them from where others are allowed to act freely is analogous. In the case of CoViD-19, many of the materials I've seen shared here suggest that this disease does not qualify like the Ebola virus might.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:

In the actions of a criminal, locking them up is to remove them from the community allowed to act freely.

The thought behind an imposed quarantine is similar. If an individual is known to have a deadly disease, removing them from where others are allowed to act freely is analogous. In the case of CoViD-19, many of the materials I've seen shared here suggest that this disease does not qualify like the Ebola virus might.

 

A year ago, in LA you could have got on your bicycle rode to a sidewalk cafe and Tweeted that and any other sentiment you liked.

Edited by tadmjones
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

In the actions of a criminal, locking them up is to remove them from the community allowed to act freely.

 

 

Not only. The purpose is most of all punishment, objective Justice to fit the crime...

So I ask more simply, is it moral and just to punish those who won't die of the virus?

In favor of those who may or will? We are then straying into subjectivity.

Rather, it would seem logical, remove oneself from the community as one and one's personal risk/reward-evaluation see fit.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd add to DM. If your major worry is distancing/masking in order to protect others, then be consistent. Don't go out of home for the duration, in self-imposed isolation. May be the masks are not 100% effective. Very likely, you will touch some object (e.g a door handle). Or you might have an explosive, uncontained sneeze. Or accidentally bump into someone. 'Ethical' masking for others and going out in public is having one's cake and eating it.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

Not only. The purpose is also punishment, objective justice to fit the crime...

It was not intended to be exhaustive.

The test and isolate approach make much more sense to me than the lock-downs. You ask if it is moral and just to punish someone who won't die of the virus - whereas I was thinking of only an imposed quarantine while the individual is demonstrably contagious, and the disease of a legitimate objective concern.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Even could and will occur now, as  maximum preventative measures stand.

We can never make the risk zero, but we can reduce it.  You aren't addressing my point about wrongfully increasing risk being physical aggression.

4 hours ago, whYNOT said:

I am hardly going to tell her she may have contributed to grannie's death.

You can stay mum all you want.  You can lie all you want.  The child may still eventual realize its role.

4 hours ago, whYNOT said:

children being raised in this climate of one's committed responsibility to others' lives

I am not saying we should do this evil thing.  I'm saying we should be rational about what constitutes physical aggression.

3 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Exacerbated divisiveness from the Dems.

Both the Dems and Trump were guilty of divisiveness, and they fed off each other.  Rather than quibble about who started it or what their motivations were, we should rise above both and try to work out a rational view.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Year   USA deaths   %inc.

2015     2,712,630

016     2,744,248     1.17

2017     2,813,503     2.52

2018     2,839,205     0.91

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm says the number of provisional deaths in 2020 through 11/28 is 2,654,825. Extrapolate that to year end. 2,654,825*365/332 = 2,918,708.

Population growth of about 0.5% for 2 years after 2018 yields an expected 2,867,597 deaths in 2020. This assumes the same age distribution, but age distribution changes very little in only 2 years. 2,918,708 - 2,867,597 = 51,111 is the implied extra deaths.

Population growth of about 0.5% for 3 years after 2017 yields an expected 2,855,705 deaths in 2020. 2,918,708 - 2,855,705 = 63,003 is the implied extra deaths.

Population growth of about 0.5% for 4 years after 2016 yields an expected 2,799,133 deaths in 2020. 2,918,7082,799,133 = 119,575 is the implied extra deaths.

Whether 2016, 2017, or 2018 is used as the base year, the implied extra deaths in 2020 is between about 51,000 and 120,000. This is well below the CDC’s provisional 2020 Covid-19 related deaths. (Plausibly, deaths related to influenza are being counted as from Covid-19, either by error or medical providers to get higher reimbursement [20% for hospitals] from Medicare and Medicaid.) Still, extra deaths of 51,000 to 120,000, and insinuating that most scientists and doctors dealing with this pandemic are fools, makes calling Covid-19 a hoax or imaginary is absurd.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, tadmjones said:
3 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

In the actions of a criminal, locking them up is to remove them from the community allowed to act freely.

The thought behind an imposed quarantine is similar. If an individual is known to have a deadly disease, removing them from where others are allowed to act freely is analogous. In the case of CoViD-19, many of the materials I've seen shared here suggest that this disease does not qualify like the Ebola virus might.

 

A year ago, in LA you could have got on your bicycle rode to a sidewalk cafe and Tweeted that and any other sentiment you liked.

I've never gotten on Twitter and am not interested in finding out how to do it.

Maybe someone who does use Twitter can Tweet that and let us know what happens.

If Twitter won't allow it, there are other channels.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not to rub it in, the US is having a particularly hard time. Similar, delayed outbreaks, but lesser infections here, also. It's the further resurgences of Covid-19 - after already onerous restrictions - which must bring into question : how effective has this policy been (for any country)? Was the other way, "bite the bullet" early, and carry on as normal, not better? Plus, I continue to make clear - voluntary self-protection for those at possible threat.

"Trying to flatten the curve only prolongs the curve". K. Wittkowski, Feb 2020

We all need to know for the next time.

Many more businesses in California which were already on the edge, will go down. These are also people's lives!

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55198173

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...