121–130 of 174 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I missed that part of the article body text, can you quote it?
I did not claim it's in the article, I'm only replying to the parent comment.
We're so many levels down into discussing claims that nobody is explicitly making in the article or this comment thread that it's hard to keep track of.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who is more likely to read and listen to a Newsweek article, an arbitrary individual reading the article making a decision for themselves, or a governmental policy maker when deciding what to tell the country?
You can choose to be a part of this, but it's the same logic as blaming the poor for societal issues or Muslims for terrorism.
It's quite possible for both "the systemic response is inadequate" and "we should not take personal actions that cause unnecessary risk for others when possible" to both be true and fit in one's head at the same time. One does not negate the other.
Lots of reacting to the title here. Which, granted, is sensationalist. I think this nicely sums up the article's point: "It's the civic and moral duty of every person, everywhere, to take part in the global effort to reduce this threat to humanity. To postpone any movement or travel that are not vitally essential, and to spread the disease as little as possible. Have your fun in June, July and August when this—hopefu…
> civic and moral duty of every person According to which canon? I find it slightly narcissistic to claim that I would have a moral right to someone else's behavior when it's well within my ability to take preventative steps for my own safety (Wash my hands, dont leave my house, and in between as my risk tolerance allows). It's a little like someone saying "You all owe me X because I exist". Do we also owe it to the…
For example. Am I better off, ultimately, living in a sicker community or not? True, I might be low risk and might not get seriously ill, but the impacts from those that do get seriously ill won't just be limited to them... economics, public expenditure, etc. all go down this path of being a net negative to my larger quality of life personally, even though I can wash my hands, etc. Add to this the likelihood that I will miss something in my precautions either through lack of knowledge or diligence, and not doing the most obvious sorts of things you might do if you were in a relatively high risk group can still lead to you becoming a vector in your own self-harm. This isn't even mentioning the fact that, while I'm not high risk, I know and live with people, people that I value, who are in high risk groups for serious complications to an infection.
Finally, while I don't have the right to other people's behavior in general, I do have the right to self-defense and so do others; and this right is largely delegated to government. Governments rightfully, if not legally perhaps, can demand some of these things in that context.... that's not to say they'd get it right... or even try to get it right... but that aspect is important.
So sitting here from my egoist perspective, it's in my better interest to minimize outside contact almost as much as if I were in a high risk group.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah so people should have free will taken away.
Yes. That happens routinely, usually but not always, if society deems your free will is a threat to it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah so people should have free will taken away.
Yes. That happens routinely, usually but not always, if society deems your free will is a threat to it.
Obviously I shouldnt be allowed to sneeze on someone (how this is defined is unclear) or to enter their private space w/o permission...
This is a bit analogous to the right to photograph/film in public.
Blaming young people seems stupid considering that everybody can spread the virus. This ageist nonsense isn't going to help stop the virus.
The point is that young people are more likely to think "Oh this won't affect me, I'll continue as normal" because the severity and mortality of this illness is statistically higher for older people. I don't see it as blaming young people, just pointing out that even if you aren't in the statistically "at risk" part of the age curve, you can still play a part in the spread and effects of this epidemic.
This scenario is playing out today in a family member's office on the East Coast.
A 30-something in the office, despite the fact that Washington state is a major COVID-19 hotspot with community spread and multiple deaths, nevertheless decided to book tickets to see a grunge band concert in Seattle, along with multiple parties.
Returning last night sent emails from the plane marveling at how empty it was. Clearly missed the memo or DGAF.
Moreover, in the office where he works, the senior partners are over 70, so in a major risk group.
This is now a big issue of how long to keep the guy home.
So, yes, everyone (young and old) needs to get smart, take precautions, and stop risking killing people.
You're 30 and want to take the risk? Fine. Just stay the F away from everyone else who didn't sign up for your risks.
And to the GP's point, no one is being 'ageist' about this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. That happens routinely, usually but not always, if society deems your free will is a threat to it.
Doesn’t seem logical. Why protect someone with such a weak immune system so they can pass it on to the next generation? That makes society weaker.
And if those friends, family, and neighbors are clogging up a strained medical system that could even cause harm to us when we require such services for our own well being.
Brought you buy the Newesweek of "OK, Millennial: Boomers Are the Greatest Generation in History" https://www.newsweek.com/2020/03/13/ok-millennial-boomers-ar...
It does seem kind of karmic through the lens of NIMBY older folks have been making it impossible for younger generations to buy/build homes near them, and now they want the young whipper snappers to care about their welfare. Maybe the best way to become a home owner in SF in the near future is to run around infecting everyone there ASAP. (In case it's not obvious, I'm mostly kidding)
> Maybe the best way to become a home owner in SF in the near future is to run around infecting everyone there ASAP. Maybe this outbreak is the first of more to come and that this is actually a wake-up call that we shouldn't be glorifying or desiring residence in such densely populated areas like we have been.
They make a good point in this article, I just wish Newsweek and other media outlets would get this pissed off about climate change. "Old and unafraid of the climate crisis? Good for you. Now stop killing future generations." If we're mobilizing to stop a pandemic, why the hell aren't we mobilizing to stop climate change? I know this is going to get downvoted into oblivion, I just wanted to say it.