131–140 of 174 posts
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.
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…
Do you owe it to the immunocompromised? As such an individual, I do not believe I am owed anything of any stripe by anybody.
However, as a human being and good citizen, I do believe I owe it to those in my community to do my best to ensure we have a safe, healthy, and thriving community. Rampantly- or willingly to use less charged verbiage- spreading a novel virus that is extremely deadly to certain segments or demographics of my community seems antithetical to that.
As a contra argument, I am capable of reliably and safely operating a vehicle at 95 mph- why should I be expected to observe speed limit laws that are intended to protect those that cannot? Does that make the law abiding drivers narcissistic?
Lastly, have you considered the impact on community services that widespread disablement of the workforce due to illness could have?
It may very well touch your life in a big way.
Edit: grammar.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Nobody is dying from global warming. Citation needed. Many (also old) people died in the European heat waves of the last summer. And every year these summers are getting hotter. Once crops closer to the already dry and hot areas of the globe stop to yield, and people migrate away from those areas — how many people die in the resulting conflicts, how much human suffering will be produced there? What impact will the…
Good points, but: > On top of that: the ddcisions we take now could potentially be multiplied by the next 1000 human generations, only idiots would take that risk lightly. The problem with this is that the decisions we take now could potentially mean anything. The butterfly effect effectively makes it meaningless to measure what we do now, so many years into the future. There's a lot of sentiment against climate chan…
What too little people really grasp is the fact that global warming is a highly non-linear process. It takes the same energy to melt 1kg of ice (at 0°C) to 1kg of water (at 0°C) as it takes to heat water from 0°C to 80°C. Currently we are melting ice – once that is gone things will go at a very different pace and this will be practically irreversible.
I don't think I am clever enough to judge alone if this is really a safe route to go, which is why I trust the experts on this one. And they all say: get your fuckign shit together and do something drastic right now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. That happens routinely, usually but not always, if society deems your free will is a threat to it.
I think most frequently the society restricts the freewilled acts _upon_ another person. I'm not sure I agree that going out in public is an act upon another person. They are free to touch door knobs or not. They are free to associate or not in public places. 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…
Photography in public is not a public health or safety issue and does not overwhelm hospitals with its effects.
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.
You see, our immune system is built up over time with exposure to viruses, and inoculations. Then as we age, as our health decreases, our immune system gets worse again.
Personally, as I make my way through middle age, I hope that when I do reach my golden years I'm met with a little bit more compassion than "who cares about you, you're old and useless."
> Do not go to places where you are more than 20 people in the same room. It's not safe and it's not worth it. Why 20? Is this simply about reducing exposure to potential carriers?
Arbitrary number, but yes. Network effects. The more people, the more likely one has the virus, and the more people likely to be affected by it, and thus carry it to still more places.
If the virus has spread to 0.1% of the population (330k cases), an auditorium with 693 people in it has a 50% chance of having at least one infected person in it.
If the virus has spread to 1% of the population (3.3M cases), a cafeteria with 69 people in it has a 50% chance of having an infected person.
If the virus has spread to 10% of the population (33M cases), a house or office with 7 people in it has a 50% chance of having an infected person.
If the virus has spread to 50% of the population (165M cases), a fortified secret bunker with 1 person in it has a 50% chance of having an infected person.
But if that bunker dweller hunkered down back when the spread was only at 0.01%, not only would they have less chance of being infected themselves, they would also not be potentially spreading it to others. So it pays to start limiting contacts earlier.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. That happens routinely, usually but not always, if society deems your free will is a threat to it.
I think most frequently the society restricts the freewilled acts _upon_ another person. I'm not sure I agree that going out in public is an act upon another person. They are free to touch door knobs or not. They are free to associate or not in public places. 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…
Examples of US policies that limit personal freedoms for the good of society without a direct infraction on someone else include: export controls, gun laws, mandatory auto insurance, income tax, state laws on vaccinations.
This is real easy to say to people who largely don't get sick days, oftentimes don't have PTO, and are far more likely to be unable to absorb a week without pay. If I take off work because I'm sick, I simply lose that money. Young people continue life like nothing is wrong because doing otherwise is not an option.
Yeah, your country sucks.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody is dying from global warming. It's a sea level rise of 2-3mm a year. Less than 11,000 people a year die from natural disasters, which is near all-time lows despite a rising population. 100 years ago, it was common for at least 1,000,000 people a year to die from natural disasters. Thanks to technology, including internal combustion vehicles and electricity, that number has dropped dramatically. Crop yields are…
> Nobody is dying from global warming. Citation needed. Many (also old) people died in the European heat waves of the last summer. And every year these summers are getting hotter. Once crops closer to the already dry and hot areas of the globe stop to yield, and people migrate away from those areas — how many people die in the resulting conflicts, how much human suffering will be produced there? What impact will the…
Here's the CDC analysis on deaths from temps, showing that among weather related causes of death (which are not even in the top 50 ways to die, by the way), 31% were due to excessive heat and 63% were due to excessive cold: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25073563-deaths-attributed-t...
There is no evidence of precipitation decline across the planet. Some drought-prone areas, that have been drought prone for thousands of years, have gotten some drought conditions. There's nothing new about that. In California there's fossil evidence of 200 year megadroughts that pre-date industrialization. So mother nature is gonna throw us curve balls no matter what we do. We have to adapt when that occurs, see links below for studies on historical megadroughts not caused by man:
https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/geology/article-abstrac...