It's not just the media. There's always a duplicitous crowd prepared to use an event as a vehicle for politics and propaganda: leftists, rightists, westerners, easterners, etc., etc., each one with a mirror image at whom to hurl claims.

Its in the long term that a scientific view wins out. Give it time.

It's not just the media. There's always a duplicitous crowd prepared to use an event as a vehicle for politics and propaganda: leftists, rightists, westerners, easterners, etc., etc., each one with a mirror image at whom to hurl claims.

Its in the long term that a scientific view wins out. Give it time. — frank

I agree. But I don't know if scientific views always win out. I think that in order for scientific views to win out, it needs to be repeated and repeated how important that view is, otherwise the pseudo-science and tin foil hat mass wins out and dictates what is science and what is not as they influence public opinion.

So leaving the country semi-open with the recommendation that people stay at home and work from home as much as they can, actually works. — Christoffer

So I had a scenario where this plays out and it turns out not well, due to employee pitted against employer and other employees. This was when the lockdown measures were not as stringent in most countries.. and I think this will be the same in any country, including Sweden. Check out the discussion here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/7913/business-ethics-and-coronavirus/p1

So I had a scenario where this plays out not well for employee pitted against employer when the lockdown measures were not as stringent.. and I think this will be the same in any country, including Sweden. Check out the discussion here — schopenhauer1

This is exactly the kind of dilemmas that businesses in Sweden are facing today. They don't have orders to lock down and send home employees, but they have the option. This is where the trust in the public comes into play. There are many employees who's been vocal against their employer if they didn't change anything of how the business should go about through this crisis. And the employees generally win such arguments and the business changes their day to day routines. I don't have any numbers on this, but from what I've heard, there is plenty of businesses who without orders from the government already and early changed so that everyone who can work from home does so.

The hard part has been the non-essential and essential staff. But I think most companies have argued that by keeping as many as home as possible, it also lessens the risk of the essential staff, who needs to be at the company, to get infected.

So the ethical thing to do is to do everything that is rationally possible to help stop the spread and suffering, even if there aren't any orders from the government to do so. It is irrational to only follow the guidelines and orders from the government if there is a possible choice to be made that doesn't negatively affect the business and employees by doing so.

I.e Priority one is to follow the official guidelines and then ask what else you can do. I think the biggest mistake we can do as a people, is to view this crisis as a separate entity from the government. We have the government, but we are also a people fighting against this virus and if everyone accept to be a part of this fight, we can ask ourselves what we can do to help. If staying at home and not interacting with anyone is something we can do, that is a part to be played and everyone has a part to play. To not play a part in it, is to be an obstacle for everyone and unnecessarily endanger other people.

If Jefferson had the order right: Life comes before liberty because without a life, there is no liberty to be had. Without civil liberties, there is no pursuit of happiness. But you still need that life there first. How bad does it have to be then, for any intervention? Let's say Ebola was highly contagious and airborne, would it be acceptable then? Also, global economies ultimately depend on a more-or-less healthy population. Without the healthy population, you have an economic collapse anyways as everyone is sick in hospitals- organizations that would have no measure of help in your scenario.

It is a weird utilitarian calculus to try to boost a future economy but not help those who are dying now. Apparently the golden rule idea doesn't apply to government, only crass utilitarian ones that calculate current death with economic depressions. Depressions do indeed hurt people, but usually they don't lead to outright death. Poverty does suck as a close second though, that I'll admit, but it is second.

Again I don’t think it’s that black and white. You are literally not helping others, protecting others, or soothing any suffering by hiding in your house. You are hiding. You have retreated. You have cowered. Those who are helping people are the first line in this pandemic: doctors, nurses, “essential workers”. So let’s stop pretending we are in some way morally better because we hide in our bedrooms.

In my mind the utilitarian calculus is the one that claims to save lives by denying basic civil liberties and human rights while ruining the very means with which we provide for our families. It does not follow that such measures need to be enforced in order to practice them. Do you yourself require a police-state and a ruined economy to physically distance yourself from others, to practice hygiene and to follow common-sense steps to avoid infection?

Which of the following statements do you think is false?

1) By going outside I am statistically more likely to come in contact with people.
2) By coming in contact with people, I am statistically more likely to transmit the virus.

Again I don’t think it’s that black and white. You are literally not helping others, protecting others, or soothing any suffering by hiding in your house. You are hiding. You have retreated. You have cowered. Those who are helping people are the first line in this pandemic: doctors, nurses, “essential workers”. So let’s stop pretending we are in some way morally better because we hide in our bedrooms. — NOS4A2

What does this have to do with the argument? That is such a red herring! The argument was civil liberties vs. federal government intervention. Oddly you are making my case by saying how little it as asking people to do.. Most people it means stay at home as much as possible. This is the best and minimal thing you can do as a citizen. Then there is federal aid to hospitals, etc. done in a fair, quick, and smart way. That part requires federal action and money, and the orange clown in office isn't going to get us there.

In my mind the utilitarian calculus is the one that claims to save lives by denying basic civil liberties and human rights while ruining the very means with which we provide for our families. It does not follow that such measures need to be enforced in order to practice them. Do you yourself require a police-state and a ruined economy to physically distance yourself from others, to practice hygiene and to follow common-sense steps to avoid infection? — NOS4A2

So first you say quarantining isn't eve a big deal, and now its police-state. Which is it? But anyways, the major point is yes..clearly people do need to be told about this, as can be shown when many people were at bars and restaurants despite the order and some employers circumvented the intent of the law by mandating people come to work, even if they were non-essential and can work from home. It's that simple. You have watched too many reruns of Red Dawn, dude.

I don’t think either are false.

OK, this is false then.

You are literally not helping others, protecting others, or soothing any suffering by hiding in your house. — NOS4A2

[as 1) + 2) above>> by staying inside, I am less likely to transmit the virus >> which helps to protect others.]

What does this have to do with the argument? That is such a red herring! The argument was civil liberties vs. federal government intervention. Oddly you are making my case by saying how little it as asking people to do.. Most people it means stay at home as much as possible. This is the best and minimal thing you can do as a citizen. Then there is federal aid to hospitals, etc. done in a fair, quick, and smart way. That part requires federal action and money, and the orange clown in office isn't going to get us there.

Asking people to give up their livelihood and the means with which they support themselves and their family isn’t asking a little. It is asking a lot, and with dire consequences.

So first you say quarantining isn't eve a big deal, and now its police-state. Which is it? But anyways, the major point is yes..clearly people do need to be told about this, as can be shown when many people were at bars and restaurants despite the order and some employers circumvented the intent of the law by mandating people come to work, even if they were non-essential and can work from home. It's that simple. You have watched too many reruns of Red Dawn, dude.

I think it’s reasonable to quarantine the sick. I don’t think it is reasonable to quarantine healthy.

So you do need to be forced or otherwise coerced into taking proactive measures to protect yourselves and others?

It takes stretch of the imagination to say hiding in one’s house is helping others, especially when others are actually out there doing so.

Asking people to give up their livelihood and the means with which they support themselves and their family isn’t asking a little. It is asking a lot, and with dire consequences. — NOS4A2

Yeah, freakn' blows...so is dying or transmitting a potential lethal virus with no cure.

I think it’s reasonable to quarantine the sick. I don’t think it is reasonable to quarantine healthy. — NOS4A2

Hmm, how do those people get sick in the first place? How do you contain the spread of a virus? Oh yeah, not being in contact with people!

So you do need to be forced or otherwise coerced into taking proactive measures to protect yourselves and others? — NOS4A2

Nope, but apparently others do. Que the guy who goes to a crowded spring break beach, with all the other people going there...

You just agreed that it does.

(Your characterization of "staying at home" as "hiding" is just empty rhetoric and makes no difference to whether or not going outside infects more people, which is the only relevant factor related to whether you "help" them or not.)

Hmm, how do those people get sick in the first place? How do you contain the spread of a virus? Oh yeah, not being in contact with people!

Right, we’ll live apart from others for the rest of our lives. What if it only prolongs the inevitable?

Nope, but apparently others do. Que the guy who goes to a crowded spring break beach, with all the other people going there...

Measures for three but not for me.

You just agreed that it does.

Umm, no I did not. You pretended I did.

Right, we’ll live apart from others for the rest of our lives. What if it only prolongs the inevitable? — NOS4A2

All the countries who have done containment well is showing a decline in number of cases, and to the point where they are going back to work, so there is empirical proof there..

Also, the goal of isolation is not to completely eradicate the disease but to "flatten the curve" which means not expose oneself to the point where hospitals cannot even save people that can normally be saved.

Measures for three but not for me. — NOS4A2

What does that even mean in this context?

Which of the following statements do you think is false?

1) By going outside I am statistically more likely to come in contact with people.
2) By coming in contact with people, I am statistically more likely to transmit the virus. — Baden

I don’t think either are false. — NOS4A2

Therefore, you agree that:

1) By going outside, I am statistically more likely to transmit the virus.

Understand, so far?

That also implies

2) By staying inside, I am statistically less likely to transmit the virus.

And we help people by not transmitting the virus to them.

Do you get it now? Or is there something in the above you can show to be false?

Or is there something in the above you can show to be false?

Yes, I can show that I never agreed that hiding in one’s house is helping others. I can show that you made that part up. One can avoid contact with others even outside. It’s called “physical distancing”, meaning you keep a certain amount of distance between you and others. This can be done outside.

You realize you're just humiliating yourself here, right?

No. Do you think one must remain isolated in his house to practice physical distancing?

I'll try again:

You just agreed that by going outside, you are statistically more likely to transmit the virus.

It's above in black and white.

That means that by staying inside, you are statistically less likely to transmit the virus.

That implies by staying inside you are helping people.

If any of the above is false, explain why.

Do you think one must remain isolated in his house to practice physical distancing? — NOS4A2

This is a red herring.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring

You just agreed that by going outside, you are statistically more likely to transmit the virus.

No, I agreed that one is more likely to transmit the virus if he comes into contact with people. What I disagree with is the implication that going outside means I’m going to come into contact with people, that I would not maintain an adequate distance.

This is a red herring.

It was a question.

Which of the following statements do you think is false?

1) By going outside I am statistically more likely to come in contact with people.
2) By coming in contact with people, I am statistically more likely to transmit the virus. — Baden

I don’t think either are false. — NOS4A2

What I disagree with is the implication that going outside means I’m going to come into contact with people — NOS4A2

You've directly contradicted yourself.

No, both are true. The statistical likelihood of me coming into contact with someone when I go outside is greater. Does this mean I necessarily come into contact with people when I go outside? No. In fact I maintain the proper distance as prescribed by the experts.

What about you? Do you think one must remain isolated in his house to practice physical distancing?

No, both are true. The statistical likelihood of me coming into contact with someone when I go outside is greater. Does this mean I necessarily come into contact with people when I go outside? No. In fact I maintain the proper distance as prescribed by the experts.
What about you? Do you think one must remain isolated in his house to practice physical distancing — NOS4A2

This argument is not about you or me, personally. It's about people in general. I responded to this:

You are literally not helping others, protecting others, or soothing any suffering by hiding in your house — NOS4A2

Not anything about you, specifically. But you know that, don't you?

You can't make government policy based on the fact that some people might be able to practice perfect social distancing. You make it based on statistical likelihoods of what will happen among the population in general, which we've already established. Anyway, I'm done. It's getting a bit silly.

I think it’s an important point. The conflation of physical distancing and self-isolation has reached an absurd level. One can easily maintain the advised distance without self-isolation. Isolation may also have significant adverse effects on health.

Nobody wants to come out until after the wave.

I can empathize with that.