Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

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

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

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.

You aren't addressing my point about wrongfully increasing risk.

56 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

'Ethical' masking for others and going out is having one's cake and eating it.

It's a question of weighing risks and costs.  It does not have to be all or nothing.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 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This graph may be out of date, it is certain those percentages have fallen further - but what it illustrates is just who are being sacrificed to whom.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

1 minute ago, Doug Morris said:

You aren't addressing my point about wrongfully increasing risk.

Just to save you time, he's just going to talk about how Democrats politicized it, why the lockdowns have been excessive, and that the threat is overblown. 

It doesn't matter what you say, that will be the response. Even though you aren't questioning any of these things. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

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.

 

Huh, that ship has already sailed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

Just to save you time, he's just going to talk about how Democrats politicized it, why the lockdowns have been excessive, and that the threat is overblown. 

It doesn't matter what you say, that will be the response. Even though you aren't questioning any of these things. 

 

You might pay attention. I posted in response to tmj's post - who was "questioning" these things - and DM picked it up and replied as is his right, although out of context.

But stay in your beliefs. The Democrats didn't politicize and exploit the pandemic. The leftist media didn't push all the alarm buttons to create fear.

And I have not said the lockdowns were "excessive". I said they should NOT have happened, practically and morally.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

One reason for lack of effectiveness is that a lot of people refused to mask or to social distance, or to take the pandemic seriously at all.

Refusing ? In the US at the start  , the accepted counsel from the experts was that masks weren't necessary. So if there was a failure to contain spread due to a lack of masks or distancing it would be silly to blame it on civil disobedience.

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

You aren't addressing my point about wrongfully increasing risk.

 

 

Comprehensively, I have answered.

"Wrongfully increasing risk"?

For whom?

If you are at very low to zero risk there's no "risk" worth dwelling on. Any more than regularly being on the roads.

The elderly/vulnerable are the ones who should avoid any risk. Preferably by not going out. Or being hyper-careful if they do choose to.

Risk vs. benefit is what rational humans do. Or else not get out of bed every morning.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

 

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

 

 

What is there better than realizing one's *delayed* guilt? The now grown up child's "role", one presumes, in his act of "physical aggression".

Link to post
Share on other sites

An apt reminder on this masthead:

  • Frederic Bastiat

    Life, faculties, production - in other words, individuality, liberty, property - this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apples and oranges, I admit. But has this general concern for others' lives led to shipments of DDT to Africa? But, manufacture and export of DDT has been banned I recall.

That's 405,000, year upon year and mostly children.

https://www.cdc.gov/malaria/malaria_worldwide/impact.html

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

the accepted counsel from the experts was that masks weren't necessary. So if there was a failure to contain spread due to a lack of masks or distancing it would be silly to blame it on civil disobedience.

It took time for masks to become available and for the experts to improve their understanding.  Once the message to mask became clear, too many people blew it off.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

And I have not said the lockdowns were "excessive".

Did you think I was saying that you are wrong about those things? Did you think that DM was saying you are wrong about those things? I mean, "things that should not happen" are excessive. He isn't trying to question that. 

Really, the topic is just about how to be respectful towards others whether or not you're an at-risk population. Should you wear a mask even when there is almost no risk for you? 

Taken from the article quoted in the OP:

"There is also the obvious short-term benefit of the social effect of good will. I want other people to wear masks so that I won’t get infected. One way to signal this to them is by wearing a mask myself as a gesture of respect. It communicates “I’ll protect you if you’ll protect me.” Gestures of respect generally open our lives to the good things others offer. As someone concerned with his self-interest, this is the kind of “virtue signaling” I’m happy to do."

At least around where I live, people really just treat it as a matter of respect. It's not much more different than washing your hands during flu season in previous years. 

Sometimes I think it's a cultural thing. As far as I know, Americans put a lot of weight into washing their hands, while various other countries are much more cavalier about it. It may look like widespread panic, but it's actually a pretty American thing to be very cautious about disease and it doesn't freak people out. Lockdowns are suggestive of panic, but we aren't trying to advocate for such draconian measures. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the matter of respect for others, dovetailing with respect for others' rights, that goes almost without saying.

One accedes to the circumstance; it is basic good manners and considerate behavior to observe the social etiquette of a gathering and/or wishes of the property owner.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is (also) the superior mindset of our 'leaders'. Do what I say, etc. (As aside, South Africa was about the only country to abolish liquor and tobacco sales for about five or six months of our lock down. Did not stop a Cabinet Minister sending an escorted truck for a load of the best liquor, a supermarket owner friend confided).

Article in American Consequences:

 
 

Dear reader,

Well, folks, it's happening again... Or should we say it's still happening...

Remember back in September when Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi made headlines for violating San Francisco's COVID-19 regulations by having her hair done inside a salon even though it was closed to the public for safety reasons?

The Democrats are at it again... pounding the table on COVID mandates that they don't follow themselves.

How is that showing leadership? It's not... And their "do what I say, not as I do" attitude toward these restrictions has the Dems showing their true hypocritical colors...

Here today to dig deeper into this important issue is author, radio show host, and American Consequences contributor Jason Rantz.

 
 

The Hypocrisy of COVID-19 Mandates
By Jason Rantz

 

Americans are in a COVID-19 revolt... But can you blame them?

Heading into the holiday season, the rhetoric and COVID mandates feel a lot like they did back in March and April when the country shut down to stave off a deadly pandemic that, according to the best modeling, suggested millions would die if we did nothing.

Back in the spring, Americans for the most part complied.

But then "15 days to slow the spread" turned into months... Spring turned into summer, fall, and now winter... And the very data promoted by Democratic officials were ignored in favor of more mandates to supposedly stop a second or third wave.

Americans made it official... They'll no longer obey rules that neither make sense nor apply to the very public officials implementing them.

A surprising number of business owners, coast to coast, are standing up to government officials and local agencies in protest of these new mandates. Restaurants, bars, and gyms ordered to close are not only defying the rules and staying open, but publicly announcing their scofflaw status.

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo ordered some area restaurants and bars to shut down due to high coronavirus infection rates in the area. It didn't matter if the venues were the cause of the spike in cases or not... Cuomo hoped to mitigate anyone's exposure, however minor.

But Keith McAlarney wasn't going to listen this time.

McAlarney owns Mac's Public House, a tavern on Staten Island. He deemed his bar an autonomous zone, refused to close his doors in protest, and publicly taunted officials to close him down. So they did... or at least they tried. During a sting operation, law enforcement fined and arrested the bar's manager, setting off a massive protest of area supporters outside the venue.

In Washington state, restaurants and gym owners are also refusing to comply. Despite less than 0.5% of the third wave of cases tied to restaurants and zero known cases tied to gyms, Governor Jay Inslee shut down restaurants for in-person dining and gyms entirely.

Spiffy's Restaurant in Chehalis, Washington opened its doors to a community ready to support it. The 80-year-old owner Rod Samuelson explained to local media that when he first reopened, he made 10 times the revenue he expected. And in Snohomish County, Graham Fitness owner Michael Knick said he was keeping his business open to support his family and his staff. He's willing to go to jail over this battle.

These stories aren't unique... They're happening all over the country. From Fresno, California and Scottsdale, Arizona to Loveland, Colorado and Detroit, Michigan, there is a surge of businesses defying mandates.

‘Do as I Say, Not as I Do' 

What explains the resistance? It's not just about making money... Perhaps it's the stunning hypocrisy and inconsistency from lawmakers. There's been a series of high-profile incidents of lawmakers and public health officials violating their own orders or advice.

When San Francisco Mayor London Breed warned ahead of Thanksgiving that we'd have to "sacrifice" parties and small get-togethers because they could become super-spreader events, she didn't tell us we'd be the only one's sacrificing. She happily attended an eight-person party at the French Laundry restaurant to celebrate the 60th birthday of socialite Gorretti Lo Lui.

Austin, Texas Mayor Steve Adler warned his constituents that, "We need to stay home if you can. This is not the time to relax." But he didn't mean "we"... He meant "you," of course. When he made those comments, he was in Cabo San Lucas, Mexico on vacation, having hosted a wedding and reception with 20 guests for his daughter days earlier.

Wear a mask, Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards demands. And he was serious! When the owner of Firehouse BBQ in Livingston Parish violated the mask mandate, Danielle Bunch was slapped with a restraining order. Yet last week, a photo of a mask-less Edwards surfaced as he talked to a group at a restaurant in violation of his own order.

Apparently the COVID-19 surge is so bad it'll kill us mortals, while our dear leaders possess the immune system of Marvel superheroes...

Now, many of us can get over the hypocrisy. Politicians have a pretty consistent track record of saying one thing while doing another.

But when officials promise to use science and data to inform their COVID response and then completely ignore what their own agency reports, it's bound to push Americans over the edge.

When Los Angeles County closed restaurants, public health officials didn't have any local data to back up their COVID fears. They even publicly admitted they had nothing to link the surge to restaurant dining. In Kentucky, Governor Andy Beshear closed all schools – including religious, private institutions. Yet, medical experts say there are ample data to support keeping schools open. What's the point of data if they will just be ignored?

And then there are the inconsistencies... Despite sweeping mandates, gyms can remain open in Michigan. But in Washington, they were forced to close. In New Jersey, professional sports can continue, but in California, the San Francisco 49ers can't play at their home stadium.

Does the coronavirus discriminate against people participating in the same activities depending on which region they live?

Meanwhile, Congress is weeks delayed in a renewed COVID-19 relief package for the businesses being destroyed by the government mandates.

So you have politicians violating their own rules, data that are being summarily ignored, and no help offered to Americans who are suffering...

This is all too much for folks to handle. So, they're revolting... Can you honestly blame them?

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Eiuol said:

 

Really, the topic is just about how to be respectful towards others whether or not you're an at-risk population. Should you wear a mask even when there is almost no risk for you? 

Taken from the article quoted in the OP:

"There is also the obvious short-term benefit of the social effect of good will. I want other people to wear masks so that I won’t get infected. One way to signal this to them is by wearing a mask myself as a gesture of respect. It communicates “I’ll protect you if you’ll protect me.” Gestures of respect generally open our lives to the good things others offer. As someone concerned with his self-interest, this is the kind of “virtue signaling” I’m happy to do."

 

 

Quoted by d_w earlier:

"Once, you believed it was 'only a compromise': you conceded it was evil to live for yourself, but moral to live for the sake of your children. Then you conceded that it was selfish to live for your children, but moral to live for your community. Then you conceded that it was selfish to live for your community, but moral to live for your country. Now, you are letting this greatest of countries be devoured by any scum from any corner of the earth, while you concede that it is selfish to live for your country and that your moral duty is to live for the globe".

---

Self-sacrifice begins with 'only a compromise' A gesture of benevolence and a symbolic act of reciprocity (I will protect you if you protect me) repeated every day will soon become dutiful and eventually turn people resentful. If you understand human nature.

When they as business owners and employees and manufacturers and artisans and suppliers to industry, see negative turn over, fewer customers and clients, denuded profits and productivity - AS RESULT of social distancing and masking. Their future and aspirations are bleak and they know it. Although the lesser evil compared to the imprisonment of lockdowns. It is another compromise, we are allowed out on our best behavior - or else!

It's all every nice invoking masking as good will to others (and citing that as "self-interest") but can't be sustained. People kick back against sacrificial restrictions. The "good things others offer" are difficult when both or all of us are behind masks and strictly two meters apart. And losing incomes. And - terrified of contracting and/or transmitting an infection.

 

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

sacrificial restrictions

if you find that wearing a mask and some social distancing are sacrificial, there's really nothing to say. Wearing a mask doesn't harm productivity or any of those other things you mentioned. A mask isn't any different than washing your hands. Social distancing can, but it's certainly not an issue if you're talking about a walk through the park. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/7/2020 at 12:23 PM, tadmjones said:

So it was the fault of civil disobedience coupled with a fundamental lack of understanding of how masks work among the infectious disease experts?

Not "a fundamental lack of understanding of how masks work" but an early stage of gaining knowledge about the virus.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Eiuol said:

if you find that wearing a mask and some social distancing are sacrificial, there's really nothing to say... A mask isn't any different than washing

 

There is plenty to say when one expands one's view past one's own life. There exists a large business sector, broadly known as the service industry, and in there is the very big conference and convention sector, theaters and music venues, hotels and resorts, restaurants, publicity/marketing - and travel and tourism! They are in total critically important in SA's economy and employment and much moreso in the US and the world, of course. I have covered or done PR in each those areas over periods, and have a good idea of the numbers of personnel behind the scenes and front of house who make them happen, the individual minds who came up with the ideas especially. Now we throw into their regular tasks, productivity and forward planning, the forced regulations of masking all day long and scrupulous sanitizing of surfaces, while keeping the specified distance away from co-workers and clients. If any one of those employees tests positive for Covid, the place has to close for a specified period and completely cleaned.

You must have an idea of how time-inefficient, restricting and costly and worrisome all that is. Coinciding with a time most of the public are fearful about venturing out, even masked? Those business ventures which haven't permanently closed their doors due to loss of patronage are struggling along at a loss. 

With no venues and few events, like concerts, shows or weddings, between my wife and I, we know of several actors, musicians, artists and dancers who haven't worked all year, most at the point of desperation. Then extrapolate these people to the international scale.

This is not your "walk through the park", and we are each affected in some way by their (sacrificial) loss. The masking issue is almost irrelevant and only conceals the culture of fear.

Nobody better tell me they are going through all that for my sake, 'in solidarity' with us older folk.

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

Coinciding with a time most of the public are fearful about venturing out, even masked?

You had me until this line. I don't think fearful is the right word, or at least, not for an action like wearing a mask. There is no reason to say anything about a mask here. It's a basic health precaution that should be done anyway regardless of covid. Some people measure the risk much higher than you, and I think it's good to respect that and wear a mask. I don't think it's an irrational or excessive expectation.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Eiuol said:

You had me until this line. I don't think fearful is the right word, or at least, not for an action like wearing a mask. There is no reason to say anything about a mask here. It's a basic health precaution that should be done anyway regardless of covid. Some people measure the risk much higher than you, and I think it's good to respect that and wear a mask. I don't think it's an irrational or excessive expectation.

Wearing a mask is a basic health precaution that should be done anyway, regardless of CoViD-19? (rhetorical)

Near as I could tell, prior to mid-March 2020, masks were commonplace by surgeons in operating theatres, people working in areas where particles such as asbestos and other hazardous dust particles were present.

Currently, many businesses here are posting that masks are expected to be worn by patrons in compliance with state/county expectations. As a patron, I comply with the request of the company managements choice to comply with the guidelines, or go elsewhere, (not that much 'elsewhere' exists in the current culture.)

In addition to the article whYNOT provided in full, there have been several other independent assessments of a similar nature.

When laws, edict, or regulations on behalf of the state(s) are not uniform and objective, they are capricious. When the law givers and regulators engage in 'do as we say, not as we do' policies, how is that not a form of the irrational?

"Some people measure the risk much higher than you, and I think it's good to respect that and wear a mask."

Mathematics is the science of measurement. When you think it is good to respect that a risk has been declared to be measured as higher and wear a mask, is that a low evaluation of your mathematical ability paying homage to a result of a declared risk elevation, or do you have something that can definitively set aside my observations of most people virtue signalling by the wearing of masks while the reporting testifies to its ineffectiveness?

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Some people measure the risk much higher than you, and I think it's good to respect that and wear a mask. I don't think it's an irrational or excessive expectation.

 

 

"Measure the risk much higher than [me]"?

Must I repeat my insistence that the personal risk (v. reward) is for everyone to assess? Known: the pandemic's consequences are most severe for an early-identified minority. Therefore: those who consider the risk not worth taking - they are the ones who should lay low, self-isolate or take maximum precautions in public.

Too terrible as it sounds to many in this ultra-safe era, every other healthy individual should do as they do while, yes, transmitting and spreading the virus. As it was initially and is known to be another coronavirus, it will - or will have already perhaps - run its course. Maybe by this present stage. Suppression does not seem to be the answer.

''Respect" in this context is ethical behavior to a degree, as stated - but "self-respect" by the risk-prone must outweigh that. Look after your life, in brief. I can't care for you. And the best of luck to you. (Probably safer for those in the risk bracket to assume everybody outside is a carrier, to be avoided). The Mask as used is more like a lapel ribbon displaying one's concern for others' illness, while obviating any more actions, than it is genuine respect. Respect is proper acknowledgment of others' strength and qualities, not their supposed frailties.

These blanket controls, from masking to lockdowns have visibly not proved efficacious, since several months down the line Covid still erupts. There are those who say that with complete compliance (i.e. total gvt. and police control and total obedience) we'd have suppressed it by these measures. On a micro-scale, perhaps (like passengers on a cruise liner). With any huge and dynamic population, that is fantasy. It just takes one ("who gets away") to inadvertently deliver the virus to another place.

As if the pandemic wasn't/isn't of enough severity, compounded to that, between the science experts and bureaucrats have added further miseries that have already overshadowed Covid-19. As some medics warned of earlier, "secondary health" concerns, inevitable psychological  effects... and more. Shows that neither class is qualified to make value-judgments about life and lives, and should stick exclusively to the objective and essential data, and to making public the information we badly need to decide for ourselves.

 

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

Quoted by d_w earlier:

... Now, you are letting this greatest of countries be devoured by any scum from any corner of the earth, while you concede that it is selfish to live for your country and that your moral duty is to live for the globe".

---

 

 

Great thanks for this reminder d-w.

Rand could have written the passage yesterday. "Globalism", anyone?

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...