D&D and the rising pandemic

[Sacrosanct]

1) True. I may not be fine. If I'm not, that's on me. I take responsibility for that. My silly life insurance policy might pay off for my wife.

2) Yes. I might end up being a carrier. I agree there, but I'm not sure its irresponsible. Shouldn't someone who doesn't want to risk exposure make the personal choice to quarantine him/herself?

3) I'm not sure it's anyone job to "handle a pandemic." Whether it should be is an interesting discussion I wish we were having. I'd like to see the arguments for and against. So far, I'm undecided on that front.

No man, it's not just on you. That's what people keep telling you. That's not how viruses work. You're putting everyone else at risk by acting irresponsibly.

As far as handling a pandemic, it's literally the governments job to do that. Fall under protecting it's citizens.

 

[slobster]

What this means is that 1) borders should not be close and quarantines should not be mandatory; 2) schools should not closed , especially when kids are not at risk. (Although, moving schooling online might be a net positive, and very different than stopping education.) 3) Individuals should be decisions about what is best for themselves and their communities. 4) Businesses should compete to solve new market problems created by the virus.

I mean no disrespect, but comments like this show that you are not very educated on the topic of epidemiology or public health. Please, listen to the advice given by the public health experts in your area when making your decisions, and keep in mind your behavior can be the difference between others being safe and healthy verses preventable tragedies and even deaths happening in your community and beyond.

I'm not saying your current actions are necessarily irresponsible, because I don't know where you live and how bad things are there. In most parts of the world, going to work and observing basic sanitary precautions are more than enough. In my area, we're having to take stricter precautions.

But if the whole world had the mindset that you are displaying here, of "as long as me and mine are safe and I can afford to do what I want, the rest of the planet can take care of itself", then the pandemic would be far, far worse than it would be if we took sensible, proven measures to mitigate it.

If you aren't an expert in the science, and those who are tell you what should be done, why would you gainsay them when lives are literally on the line?

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

I mean no disrespect, but comments like this show that you are not very educated on the topic of epidemiology or public health. Please, listen to the advice given by the public health experts in your area when making your decisions, and keep in mind your behavior can be the difference between others being safe and healthy verses preventable tragedies and even deaths happening in your community and beyond.

I'm not saying your current actions are necessarily irresponsible, because I don't know where you live and how bad things are there. In most parts of the world, going to work and observing basic sanitary precautions are more than enough. In my area, we're having to take stricter precautions.

But if the whole world had the mindset that you are displaying here, of "as long as me and mine are safe and I can afford to do what I want, the rest of the planet can take care of itself", then the pandemic would be far, far worse than it would be if we took sensible, proven measures to mitigate it.

If you aren't an expert in the science, and those who are tell you what should be done, why would you gainsay them when lives are literally on the line?

Of course I'm not well educated on it. You have that correct, but you're post is also full of assumptions, including:

1) Public health officials have political authority
2) Their authority is legitimate
3) Their legitimate authority overrides personal authority
4) Death is a tragedy
5) Stricter precautions are worth any sacrifices to personal freedom they might inflict
6) The world is a community
7) Communities can have mindsets

Now of coming with a set assumptions isn't always bad. Everyone brings assumptions to an argument, and our own assumptions are easier for others to spot than they are for others to spot.

But some of the reason there we might be disagreeing is a fundamental difference in our assumptions.

Now, while I might agree that I also hold 4 to be true, I have yet to see are good argument to support it. Our assumptions cannot always be supported. Often times they have no foundations. In fact, I'm almost sure all foundations we base our human cultures on have cracks in them, which is something I'm currently trying to come to terms with.

I admit my philosophy is shaky, and I am philosophically confused at the moment. I used to ask a lot of questions, but would receive few answers. Instead, I would be pushed away. As a result, I am probably less likely to take others' well being into consideration.

Which means, as I said before, I should not be in charge of public policy. I'm just not sure anyone else should be either.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

No man, it's not just on you. That's what people keep telling you. That's not how viruses work. You're putting everyone else at risk by acting irresponsibly.

As far as handling a pandemic, it's literally the governments job to do that. Fall under protecting it's citizens.

The bolded section confuses me. Who defines what is the government's job to do and what isn't. Who chooses those people? How do we verify that is the correct answer? Does the might of the government make them right? Who decides what is right?

Honestly, I can't answer those questions, and have never met anyone else who can either. Which is very disappointing to me, but it is my subjective opinion that we must analyze our assumptions, especially in the face of crises, in order not to institute a policy with unforeseen consequences.

 

[slobster]

Of course I'm not well educated on it. You have that correct, but you're post is also full of assumptions, including:

4) Death is a tragedy

Now, while I might agree that I also hold 4 to be true, I have yet to see are good argument to support it. Our assumptions cannot always be supported.

I admit my philosophy is shaky, and I am philosophically confused at the moment.

I was arguing with you in the assumption of good faith, but if you aren't convinced of the value of human life, we won't be able to have any kind of constructive argument. I wish you the best in your search for philosophical coherence, but also know that I find it monstrous that anyone could honestly advance the idea that human life has no value as a possible foundation for their response to a humanitarian and health crisis.

I'll just finish with an appeal to your own self-interest. If you don't see the value in other people's lives, you at least seem to see value in your family's. If things get bad enough in your area that the government and health experts recommend quarantines, FOLLOW THEM. To do otherwise is to put yourself at risk, and if you were to die I'm sure your family would see the tragedy in that passing. For their sake, put value on your own life and follow health advice, even if you don't attach value to the lives of others.

 

[Bitbrain]

2) Yes. I might end up being a carrier. I agree there, but I'm not sure its irresponsible. Shouldn't someone who doesn't want to risk exposure make the personal choice to quarantine him/herself?

3) I'm not sure it's anyone job to "handle a pandemic." Whether it should be is an interesting discussion I wish we were having. I'd like to see the arguments for and against. So far, I'm undecided on that front.

Arguments for closing businesses, and instituting quarantines?

I recommend you look up the Siege of Kaffa. Spoiler alert: It ain’t pretty.

 

[seebs]

For me, it's business as usual. I'm going to work, etc. I haven't changed any of my habits because I, as a fit 27 year old don't need to.

Then, statistically speaking, you will be the cause of at least one person dying, on average. Maybe it'll be none. Maybe it'll be 20+. But you are taking actions that could cause someone to die, when you could, at virtually zero cost to yourself, not cause anyone to die.

And yes, it's irresponsible to go around carrying disease, because it makes people die. No, it isn't on the people who don't want to get sick to be quarantined, because we can't function if everyone tries to be quarantined. So we go with the obvious, well-tested, proven tactic: People who are likely to be contagious are quarantined until they're no longer contagious, and then they're safe to go around because they won't get anyone sick.

And you keep saying that you're worried about economic impacts or whatever, but then dismissing the epidemic's costs as temporary. But the economic impacts you're worried about are just as temporary, and the epidemic's costs and harms include significantly larger economic impacts than the ones you're supposedly trying to avoid.

If you're 27, you probably ought to be able to think about how your actions have consequences, and those consequences can affect other people, and even you. Sometimes indirectly. For instance, maybe you think you don't need to worry, and it's other people's job to keep themselves safe, and you want to Support Small Business. So you go to a small business, and you carry disease to them, and you make them be too sick to work for two weeks, and kill one of their family members. And that's your idea of supporting them?

Come on. My cat is not smart, and sometimes has trouble solving the mystery of what miscreant threw up her food, but I think she might be able to see the problem here.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

I was arguing with you in the assumption of good faith, but if you aren't convinced of the value of human life, we won't be able to have any kind of constructive argument. I wish you the best in your search for philosophical coherence, but also know that I find it monstrous that anyone could honestly advance the idea that human life has no value as a possible foundation for their response to a humanitarian and health crisis.

I'll just finish with an appeal to your own self-interest. If you don't see the value in other people's lives, you at least seem to see value in your family's. If things get bad enough in your area that the government and health experts recommend quarantines, FOLLOW THEM. To do otherwise is to put yourself at risk, and if you were to die I'm sure your family would see the tragedy in that passing. For their sake, put value on your own life and follow health advice, even if you don't attach value to the lives of others.

I think you're misreading me. I do find value in human life. Yet I do not know where that value comes from. It is an assumption, and one in search of a foundation.

I also hold personal and social freedom a value. That one, too, comes without a foundation.

Because both lack foundations, how does one choose which to place above the other.

My initial response would be that freedom requires life, and therefore we must place freedom above life when those two values are pitting against one another.

But in this case, we are not pitting the absolute end of life against the absolute end of freedom. Perhaps we are placing .05% of life against 5% of freedom. I don't know. Therefore, I have no right to enforce my beliefs upon others.

However, I don't believe anyone else has an answer either, and if they do I haven't seen an explanation or inquiry.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

OK. I think I'm going to bow out here. I think we're arguing at different levels of analysis.

 

[slobster]

OK. I think I'm going to bow out here. I think we're arguing at different levels of analysis.

The thing about a personal philosophical crisis is, it's abstract. You have your whole life to work through it, debate it, question your first principles and what others are telling you, and work out what makes sense to you.

An outbreak is concrete. Real people are put at risk of sickness or death by your actions, now. You can be a hero and protect people at relatively little cost to yourself, or you can be self-interested and put others at risk to satisfy your own desire to be quixotic. But the costs will linger, while your philosophy will almost certainly change as you grow.

Just be responsible now. You can use the time at home to debate philosophy on the internet with others who have similar interests!