Covid, the "lockdowns" etc.

[This Guy]

We are always replying to ourselves all the time. The name of the reply is ideology.

[jhkim]

This is what I mean by lack of content to the conversation.

To Pat - I did not mean to misinterpret you previously, and I would be interested in what you currently think about what happened in Saint Vincent. At this point, what is your position on what the government of Saint Vincent did? Do you currently think there was a massive human right violation?


In general, my moral stance regarding infectious disease and providing aid:

Aid should be provided to everyone, absolutely. But when infectious disease is a danger, there are good reasons to differentiate and separate between infected and uninfected, and vaccinated and unvaccinated. That doesn't mean abandon either side - but it may mean treating them differently. For example, if some people are known to be infected with a disease, they might be quarantined - but still treated, respected, and cared for. That's not inherently discrimination or a human rights violation.

[Pat]

I would be interested in what you currently think about what happened in Saint Vincent. At this point, what is your position on what the government of Saint Vincent did? Do you currently think there was a massive human right violation?


In general, my moral stance regarding infectious disease and providing aid:

Aid should be provided to everyone, absolutely. But when infectious disease is a danger, there are good reasons to differentiate and separate between infected and uninfected, and vaccinated and unvaccinated. That doesn't mean abandon either side - but it may mean treating them differently. For example, if some people are known to be infected with a disease, they might be quarantined - but still treated, respected, and cared for. That's not inherently discrimination or a human rights violation.

I don't know, it's not clear what happened.

The other stuff, you're making a horrible mish-mash of historical standard practice and the new wave of totalitarianism. Yes, there's a difference between the infected and the non-infected. That's what quarantine is for, isolating the infected. Not entire populations of healthy people. That's what's utterly bizarre about covid-19. The whole idea of public health has been flipped on its head. We live in an upside down world where narrowly targeted measures to isolate those who are a clear danger of infection have been turned into isolating and discriminating against the uninfected and uncontagious. It's equivalent to the justice system switching from locking up people who have been proven guilty via the legal process, to locking everyone up and only allowing people out after they "voluntarily" accept a treatment that will prevent them from committing any crimes in the future.

[jhkim]

In general, my moral stance regarding infectious disease and providing aid:

Aid should be provided to everyone, absolutely. But when infectious disease is a danger, there are good reasons to differentiate and separate between infected and uninfected, and vaccinated and unvaccinated. That doesn't mean abandon either side - but it may mean treating them differently. For example, if some people are known to be infected with a disease, they might be quarantined - but still treated, respected, and cared for. That's not inherently discrimination or a human rights violation.

The other stuff, you're making a horrible mish-mash of historical standard practice and the new wave of totalitarianism. Yes, there's a difference between the infected and the non-infected. That's what quarantine is for, isolating the infected. Not entire populations of healthy people. That's what's utterly bizarre about covid-19. The whole idea of public health has been flipped on its head. We live in an upside down world where narrowly targeted measures to isolate those who are a clear danger of infection have been turned into isolating and discriminating against the uninfected and uncontagious. It's equivalent to the justice system switching from locking up people who have been proven guilty via the legal process, to locking everyone up and only allowing people out after they "voluntarily" accept a treatment that will prevent them from committing any crimes in the future.

In your analogy, you're drawing an equivalence between people who are sick and guilty criminals. But people who are sick aren't guilty of anything. They aren't deserving to be punished. They should be treated with respect and dignity, and they have the same rights as healthy people. Morally, government action against sick people is no more justified than it is against healthy people. Ultimately, the justification for either depends on the idea that there is a threshold of public good that overrides individual rights. If enough people are dying of war, natural disaster, or disease - then at some point it is considered an emergency that overrides some usual rights. And those measure might be against either sick and healthy. Who is acted on is a practical matter of what will do the most good.

I'd give an alternate analogy comparing two regimes:

(1) A government who lock people up with no trial or rights - but they only do this to a small minority groups.
(2) A government who regularly lock up a broad groups of the majority population.

Which of these two is totalitarian? To my mind, they both are.

What justifies quarantine isn't that it's only done to a small number of people, so therefore it's OK to oppress them. It's that it is implemented by a democratic government, where people have rights regardless of their health. For example, if the Italian people don't like how their government handled the pandemic, then they can elect different people with a platform of change in the next election.

EDITED TO ADD: One might argue that Italy isn't democratic - but that's separate from the principle of what justifies the pandemic restrictions for any country.

[Pat]

What justifies quarantine isn't that it's only done to a small number of people, so therefore it's OK to oppress them. It's that it is implemented by a democratic government, where people have rights regardless of their health. For example, if the Italian people don't like how their government handled the pandemic, then they can elect different people with a platform of change in the next election.

Don't agree at all. Look at what you're saying -- you're justifying quarantine not on the basis of the nature of the restrictions or how its implemented, but on the type of government that's implementing it. By your logic, the most restrictive and overreaching quarantine is fine, as long as the government is democratic. But even the most modest, reasonable quarantine is unjust, if it comes from any other type of government. While there's an argument to be made that any action taken by an undemocratic government is unjust, that doesn't mean that undemocratic nations are unable to act admirably, or that all actions taken by a democratic government are just. The justness, or rightness, or validity of a quarantine can't be defined just by the type of government that imposes it. And of course it's different from a criminal conviction, because getting infected by a disease is not a matter of guilt. But otherwise the analogy holds.

Quarantines need to be justified on their own merits. The key is the balance between the threat to public health, and individual rights. Quarantines are inherently a violation of individual rights, which means the threshold for imposing a quarantine needs to be very high. That's why quarantines, in any time and any place except the crazy upside down present, are imposed on those who are sick. People who are infected by a disease, and who either show clear symptoms, or who were exposed to someone who was known to be contagious, usually via personal contact. It's also restricted only to the most severe diseases, based on a combination of infectiousness and effects like death. Since there is no guilt, it means these people must be treated with a high degree of consideration, because they're being imposed on, not punished. And because it is such a great imposition, it must be highly curtailed, and the people must be released under clearly defined conditions, and as soon as possible.

Quarantines are a violation of basic human rights, which is why they've always been highly targeted and require strong justifications. This is a clear and present danger kind of thing, not a theoretical, amorphous statistical risk. It is simply not acceptable, and not just, for basic human rights to be thrown out because of a vague mighta coulda; or to impose those restrictions on an entire population, instead of on individuals.

[Mistwell]

we're all replying to ourselves.

We're all replying to ourselves?

We're all replying to ourselves?

[This Guy]

we're all replying to ourselves.

We're all replying to ourselves?

We're all replying to ourselves?

We're all replying to ourselves

[Shasarak]

we're all replying to ourselves.

We're all replying to ourselves?

We're all replying to ourselves?

We're all replying to ourselves

We're all replying to ourselves

[yancy]

We're all replying to ourselves.

Don't you fuckin' mouth off to me.

[Kiero]

The meltdown from the lockdown fanatics at the prospect of mask-wearing being made voluntary two weeks from now is utterly hilarious. Masks are the most visible symbol of compliance from the cowardly majority, when that goes their entire grip on people goes.

Needless to say I don't own a mask and have never worn one.

[HappyDaze]

Needless to say I don't own a mask and have never worn one.

Needless to say you probably live in your mother's basement and have no employment that requires you to leave it.

[Kiero]

Needless to say you probably live in your mother's basement and have no employment that requires you to leave it.

No; I live in my own place, am in full time employment and leave my house every single day.

I have offspring too, who can see for themselves how much bullshit this all is.

[Ratman_tf]

The meltdown from the lockdown fanatics at the prospect of mask-wearing being made voluntary two weeks from now is utterly hilarious. Masks are the most visible symbol of compliance from the cowardly majority, when that goes their entire grip on people goes.

Needless to say I don't own a mask and have never worn one.

Did the businesses in your town/city have mask requirements? All the places I go have had mask mandates, and only recently lifted them for the vaccinated only.
If I refused to wear a mask, especially early in the lockdowns, I would not have been able to go to the store without leaving the State. And that's a long way to go for a box of Cherrios.

[Kiero]

Did the businesses in your town/city have mask requirements? All the places I go have had mask mandates, and only recently lifted them for the vaccinated only.
If I refused to wear a mask, especially early in the lockdowns, I would not have been able to go to the store without leaving the State. And that's a long way to go for a box of Cherrios.

We have exemptions available, and medical confidentiality means no one is allowed to ask you what your reasons are. I claim an exemption under the Regulations which mandate mask-wearing, and thus never wear a mask.

I go in shops every single day without a mask on, have done for over a year now, it was last July this nonsense came in.

[Shasarak]

Needless to say I don't own a mask and have never worn one.

Needless to say you probably live in your mother's basement and have no employment that requires you to leave it.

Thats the type of person who needs triple masking.