The Coronavirus thread

Quote: Mission146

Quote: rxwine

3 points, curious whether it was written after the vaccines or before.

Second point. The same virus he had in his body may have then spread to kill an unsuspecting person. How is that like, choosing to do a more risky activity like bare handed rock climbing or similar activity where you only risking your own life? I say it's different.

Third point - If you fire a gun recklessly in a crowd, the shots may kill several people. But even worse case scenario there's still going to be an upper limit of wounded and dead. This virus is a multiplying risk. It's spreading to countries which don't even have access to a vaccine yet.

1.) It's dated August 10th, 2021, so I'm guessing after. On the other hand, there are no mentions (that I could see) of the vaccine actually in the article, so I don't know. It's hard to tell, but I don't know why anyone would sit on the article for six months or more.

2.) I guess it's different in that sense, but that's true of any number of activities. When you drive, you theoretically risk not only your life, but those of other drivers on the road as well as pedestrians. If you have sex with a particular person and then go on to have sex with a different person (whatever length of time) and didn't get an STD test after the previous person, then you are theoretically directly risking the life of the next person.

Healthcare professionals operate in an environment that includes deliberate exposure to viruses, but then they go out and live their day-to-day lives when they are not working. They could spread something to an unsuspecting person at any time, in fact, we saw exactly that with the nursing home cases in the early stages of Covid-19 because those patients were especially vulnerable.

There's no evidence to suggest that life comes with anything less than a 100% probability of death.

That being the case, any person is free to determine his/her own risk-tolerance. Some people do bare-handed rock climbing; I wouldn't, but that's more out of concern for serious injury than it is out of concern for death.

During this Covid-19, people have the right to do their own CBA and determine what is best for them. Fortunately, we live in such a highly developed society that, if a person is able to get a job working exclusively from home, then that person almost never has to leave the house if they don't want to. A person could choose to hunker down inside the house, have all food and essentials delivered and almost never come into contact with anyone.

At this time, those leaving the house do so taking a risk that wasn't there before---more so for unvaccinated people, as it seems to turn out. It's for each person to decide whether or not the risk of where they are going is worth it. If you decide not, then that's fine. Some people will try to avoid leaving at all costs. Some people will go to some places and not others. Some people will travel long distances and others won't. Some people (my camp) aren't really compelled to let Covid change anything that they would normally be doing---demands of a particular business or Government entity aside.

Anyway, everyone should be, 'Suspecting,' as you use the word and make their decisions accordingly. If you have the capacity and ability to hunker down, then hunker down...anyone going to a casino in Las Vegas is an idiot if they didn't know they were taking a risk of some sort. I'm not saying that GOING makes them an idiot, but what would make them an idiot is if they thought that there was a zero chance of getting the virus in a Vegas casino---which I am sure nobody thinks, at least, very few people.

This whole thing is a great test of voluntarism and free association. It's interesting to me that some people are so concerned that they don't think others should have the right to freely associate where they may wish.

3.) I certainly haven't gone to any other countries. If they want to keep the virus out, or keep more of it from coming in, then they are free to decide to restrict travel to/from those countries, if they wish. I'm pretty sure the cat is out of the bag either way, though.

Imagine that you're some eighty-something year old guy who lived alone during Covid---imagine this guy hunkered down in his house and not visiting his kids, r what have you, either out of terror or out of some misguided notion that he should actually feel compelled to listen to guidance not to go out of state. This guy does this for whatever period of time, then WHAM, heart attack out of nowhere. He's dead. Now, what did he avoid seeing his family for?

I agree with the sentiment of the article: If you (general 'you,' not you personally) spend every minute in fear of a death that is inevitable anyway, and try to mitigate every possible risk down to nothing, then you'll forget to actually live.

Quote: rxwine

Quote: Mission146

Quote: rxwine

I totally have no problem with people who want to take risks to their own health no matter how great or little.

Hypothetical: If you put some highly radioactive material in your pocket, that could kill someone in 3 hours of exposure, do you think you have a right to knowingly expose someone else to it even for 10 minutes? I guess you could call it low risk. Maybe you're intent on killing yourself this way.

We all endanger someone else every time we get behind the wheel. Society agrees that is an acceptable risk.

"but if you make yourselves sheep, the wolves will eat you." Benjamin Franklin

Quote: rxwine

I totally have no problem with people who want to take risks to their own health no matter how great or little.

Hypothetical: If you put some highly radioactive material in your pocket, that could kill someone in 3 hours of exposure, do you think you have a right to knowingly expose someone else to it even for 10 minutes? I guess you could call it low risk. Maybe you're intent on killing yourself this way.

Quote: Mission146

A hypothetical false equivalence is still a false equivalence. I could blindfold myself and try to shoot targets, but I wouldn't. We're talking about living normal day-to-day lives, not carrying around radioactive waste.

Quote: rxwine

Let's just apply the theme. Do you have a right to endanger someone's health besides your own? Let's say you put a banana peel purposely on the sidewalk knowing that there's 1 in a 1000 chance that the person will slip and fall?

Do you have the right or not? You have the ability certainly, but do you have the right to endanger someone else's[/ health?

Quote: rxwine

Where I am going with this...

It's not to point out we do this kind of thing everyday.

It's to point out, we don't have the inherent right to endanger other's people's health

From that, where do we go? We go to consensus of agreement. Libertarians may say it's an individual choice, but I disagree as soon as it crosses the physical space. You don't have the right to endanger other people's health on your own individual choice. You need some sort of consensus of agreement.

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: rxwine

Where I am going with this...

It's not to point out we do this kind of thing everyday.

It's to point out, we don't have the inherent right to endanger other's people's health

From that, where do we go? We go to consensus of agreement. Libertarians may say it's an individual choice, but I disagree as soon as it crosses the physical space. You don't have the right to endanger other people's health on your own individual choice. You need some sort of consensus of agreement.

The problem is you are confusing actively endangering someone with passively going about your life.

A banana peel on the sidewalk is actively endangering someone.

Going around without a vax or mask is not. Unless you feel sick it is just living your life. Those too afraid to be around people they do not know are vaxed should stay at home not expect everyone to take every measure.

Meanwhile we are now hearing the vax should be 3 not just 2 doses. Still wonder why I am not rushing out to get it?

Quote: rxwine

Where I am going with this...

It's not to point out we do this kind of thing everyday.

It's to point out, we don't have the inherent right to endanger other's people's health

From that, where do we go? We go to consensus of agreement. Libertarians may say it's an individual choice, but I disagree as soon as it crosses the physical space. You don't have the right to endanger other people's health on your own individual choice. You need some sort of consensus of agreement.