This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Sure.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

No.

Seems like you didn't read my post or just decided to ignore what I said.

what's your game plan? People die. End of story. Fight it, hide, cry, whine, whatever you do the end result is exactly the same. So, as per the common narrative we are all supposed to cower in fear until we die. Anyone that doesn't want to live in fear must be uninformed or stupid. It couldn't be that we are well educated, well informed and ALSO have no interest in living in fear, because that would mean...Different values!

I ask no one to do what I do. I am nowhere near pretentious enough to attempt to mandate them to do what I want. I firmly support personal autonomy and personal responsibility. Apparently that makes me part of the minority, and therefore irrelevant, although no less morally correct.

Nope. They can't see past the headlines. Not ever.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

But live in fear of everything is mentally healthy? Do you read your responses or just go with whatever you are feeling at the time?

I'm drunk, but I simply have to get home. So I drive, and the decision to drive drunk is just my own judgment that I can make about risks and benefits, yes? — tim wood

You make the call, you live, or die, with the results. IF you chose to drive drunk and you kill yourself, or someone else, that's on you. You don't get to whine that no one saved you from yourself and that none of it is your fault because of someone else's lack of action. You do it, you own it.

I will help anyone that is willing to help themselves and no one who isn't. Helping hands up, not handouts.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Everything you do has an effect on someone else. Where do you put your limits on spheres of potential influence? Following that logic through would leave one unable to do anything, while also being unable to do nothing, as no choice is without potential to adversely effect others. Arguably, the least impacting on the world at large would be to commit suicide at the earliest juncture in order to minimize the potential damage done by the decisions made throughout a long, well-lived life. Which is ridiculous, and yet, follows that logic exactly. No matter what you choose, you end up wrong.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Thanks for that eh. A non-answer, but if that's all you have to support your position...fair enough.

It's about one's right to take risks with one's own life if one wants. Imagine everyone apart from you gets an illness that can easily be cured, but no one wants to take the cure and would rather die. Well, that's everyone's right, yes? — Bartricks

In an atomized population your argument works. In a society where individual behavior makes a difference to other people, whether intended or not, your argument doesn't work, because:

individual risk taking has social costs -- HIV is a very good example, and so is covid-19. Caring for sick people requires an allocation of resources which can be exhausted by excessive disease. The set of covid-19 control measures was designed to prevent scarce resources--icu departments in particular, and hospitals in general, from being overwhelmed.

"Individuals can do whatever they want to do as long as it affects only them" does apply in many situations, but public health costs isn't one of them.

What was it Patrick Henry said? "Give me convenience, or give me death!" right?

No, that was the Dead Kennedys. But I'm sure Patrick Henry would have said it.

You make the call, you live, or die, with the results. IF you chose to drive drunk and you kill yourself, or someone else, that's on you. You don't get to whine that no one saved you from yourself and that none of it is your fault because of someone else's lack of action. You do it, you own it. — Book273

I believe the government has the legitimate authority to place reasonable restrictions on people's lives in order to protect public health. Seems like you disagree with that. I also believe that government has the legitimate authority to act following legally established procedures whether or not everyone agrees. Perhaps you disagree with that too. My conclusion is that reasonable restrictions during this pandemic are ethical. There is no need for us to wait for your agreement to proceed.

The set of covid-19 control measures was designed to prevent scarce resources--icu departments in particular, and hospitals in general, from being overwhelmed. — Bitter Crank

Absolutely. If hospitals are overwhelmed you end up with a much bigger and long lasting problem.

Also, I'm wondering what the anti-masker/lockdown people would say if the virus had been spread by terrorists, using let's say a biological bomb, because I don't remember hearing too much bitching when civil liberties and privacy were permanently eroded as a consequence of the attacks on 9/11 and such. It would probably go like, "Wear a mask or you're helping the terrorists!"

Every death is a tragedy, but intelligent and thoughtful people need to be able to hold two ideas in their minds: One, that the deaths are bad; and two, that in many cases they have been politicized. — fishfry

Most deaths are perfectly normal and not tragic in the least.

Absolutely, the government can do what it likes, always could. My issue is with the lame-ass attempt at justifying the action. The rhetoric used does not jive with the response mandated, therefore I call foul. I would have more support for the actions if they were simply mandated, rather than poorly explained and rationalized with faulty logic.

Every death is a tragedy, but intelligent and thoughtful people need to be able to hold two ideas in their minds: One, that the deaths are bad; and two, that in many cases they have been politicized. — fishfry

Please explain how every death is a tragedy. Then explain how deaths are bad. I don't follow either of these assumptions. It's like rain is bad and when rivers flow into the ocean it is a tragedy. Natural, normal and predictable linear systems, somehow bad and tragic?

Absolutely, the government can do what it likes, always could. My issue is with the lame-ass attempt at justifying the action. The rhetoric used does not jive with the response mandated, therefore I call foul. I would have more support for the actions if they were simply mandated, rather than poorly explained and rationalized with faulty logic. — Book273

Does that mean it would be ethical or moral to put restrictions on individuals behavior, on your behavior, if you agreed with the reasoning behind it? That's not what I thought you were saying.

How is the drink driving case analogous? It's like responding 'oh, so we shouldn't arrest murderers?'
Imagine there are three people in existence: you, me and Brian. I don't know if I've got a deadly virus, but I know it is possible. And that is also the situation for the rest of you. And we all know this. Well, if I nevertheless want to meet Brian and brian wants to meet me, then you have no right to stop us, yes?
If we want to visit you but you do not wish us to, then you do have the right to stop us visiting you. You can lock yourself on your property. But if brian and I want to meet you are not entitled to lock us in to stop us, correct?
Now just change the numbers, realize that's what lockdowns involve, and learn not to be so bossy and impose your lifestyle choices and values on others!! As Shaw said, do not do as you would be done by, for others may not share your tastes!

If I agreed with it they would not be restrictions. I have an issue with the restrictions because the historic science does not support them. The new data has a large potential for introduced bias, therefore is questionable. I trust that the Government, any government, has it's interests placed well before the interests of its populace, therefore, again, the rationale espoused by said government should be questioned critically. Anyone on said government's payroll is also potentially in a conflict of interest.
If everything that my Government tells me about the Pandemic is on the up and up, why am I not allowed to question anything?

In my job I am expected to advocate for my patients, however, I am also expected to make my employer look good. At times these goals are not compatible. I choose to advocate for my patients, provide the best patient care that I can and, in so doing, recognize that I risk my career. Others decide differently, and I understand that too. Risking your income is one thing, risking the income of your entire family is something different entirely.

You and Brian are free to take a chance at infecting each other, but you have to assume all the risks involved which includes becoming an extra burden on an already overwhelmed health care system.
I guess, you can meet with Brian, for as long as you don't seek medical care if you need it. The problem is that nobody can stop you from getting treatment.

So, Tim is allowed to stop us meeting if Tim happens to have voluntarily decided that he'll treat us if we get ill?! How does that work, exactly?

So, I shall just decide, without asking you, that I will treat you should you get sick. Right - does that now give me the right to regulate your behaviour? No, obviously not.

Doctors usually treat anybody even people who brought the illness upon themselves. But when you don't have enough of them to care for everybody, it would be fair that at least the ones who took more risks would get treatment last. However, there's no way to keep track.

In an atomized population your argument works. — Bitter Crank

Which is another way of saying "it works". I do not know what you mean by an 'atomized' population. You're just clutching at straws.