Lockdowns and rights

Bartricks

It is far from clear to me that lockdowns to prevent a virus from spreading are ethically justified. The more I think about it, the more unjust they strike me.

For instance, imagine Jane and Bill want to meet. And Jane and Bill know full well that were they to meet, they will subsequently die as a result. Nevertheless, they still want to. That is, they value more highly meeting one another than continuing to live.

Okay - am I entitled to stop them meeting? I think it is intuitively obvious that I am not. Who am I to do so? They are free agents, and they understand the consequences of their actions at least as well as I do, and so it would be, well, somewhat outrageous of me to stop them meeting. I mean, their act strikes me as quite unwise. It may even, perhaps, be unethical (for perhaps it is unethical to do something you know will kill you, exceptional circumstances aside). But even so, I do not seem justified in preventing them from meeting. And nor do you.

We recognize this in other contexts, for patients are allowed to refuse treatment, aren't they, even if their refusal will result in their deaths. That's their right. So we have a right to do things with our lives, including things we know will result in their termination, if we want to.

Now let's imagine that rather than knowing they will die if they meet, they just know that there is a small chance they will. Maybe a chance of, say, 100:1. Okay, well surely if I am not justified in preventing them from meeting when it was certain they'd both die and they knew this, I am surely not justified in preventing them from meeting when there is just a relatively small risk that they'll die. That seems clear.

Well, isn't that the situation we're all in with the pandemic? We know that if we associate with others, there's a risk we'll get the virus or, if we unknowingly have it already, pass it on to others. But, well, so long as we all know this, surely no one has the right to stop us associating if we want to?

Things would be different if you knew that you had the virus and knew that others did not know this. For now you are knowingly exposing others to a risk that they did not know they'd be exposed to. But that's not the situation. If the situation is that there is a population of people who know that there is just a risk that they'll die by associating - but a mutual risk - then it seems to me quite unjust to prevent such people from associating if they so wish.

Nothing stops individuals from locking themselves down if they so wish. If you judge that the risk of getting the virus is just too great to justify associating with others, then so be it: no one is making you associate with others, so just don't. Yes, it'll cost you your job or your business. But then you clearly value more highly not running the risk of getting a virus than you do your job. And it would be quite unjust for anyone to force you to go to work or force you to keep running your business, wouldn't it?
Well, the reverse is surely true too. if it would be wrong to force you to go to work if you do not want to, surely it is wrong to force you not to if you want to?

It seems to me, then, that lockdowns are unjust. Individuals can make their own judgements about risks and benefits. And it is not for others to impose a one-size fits all judgement about the matter on a population as a whole. So long as we're all innocent threats to one another, we should be free to associate (if, that is, we want to).

Book273

↪Bartricks

We have always had this level of potentially poor, or lethal, results from social interaction. There are innumerable bugs out there that are capable of killing people, most without names and as yet, undiscovered. Using our current public health guidelines as a template, we should therefore be in a permanent lockdown out of an abundance of caution. This completely ignores history, our immune systems abilities, and the ever-so-annoying fact that these bugs have always been out there. Nothing has changed in that regard. This bug has a name now, we know about it. That is all. I am no more at risk now than I was six months ago, or 18 months ago. At least, not from the bugs out there.

I am far more at risk from social violence now than I was 18 months ago. Anyone that wants to dispute this can simply go for a walk, or go shopping, exactly as they would have 18 months ago: Mask free and with friends. See if there is any difference in how other people react now, as opposed to say, October 15, 2019. I am betting people feel much less safe now. That is a definable difference brought about by the abundance of caution approach: we live in generalized fear and anxiety...of the idea of maybe getting sick. This is something we teach our children, when they are children, to not be fearful of. We will get sick in our lives and the vast majority of us will survive it and be stronger for it. That is what we taught our children. Now we are teaching them to be fearful of illness, to have no faith in their natural ability to fight illness, and to believe that, without pharmaceutical intervention, they will get sick and die. What a damaging and horrible fallacy. Look at our population numbers...look at our history...we are doing fine without the lockdown.

fishfry

It is far from clear to me that lockdowns to prevent a virus from spreading are ethically justified. — Bartricks

In the end the lockdowns will kill far more people than the virus ever did. The entire episode's been an exercise in mass hysteria and social control. A preview of what's coming, now that the powers that be have seen how compliant and easily controlled we are.

tim wood

Is there something about pandemic, contagion, mortality rates these geniuses do not understand? Or maybe I'm wrong. It seems a very simple issue. Maybe someone can explain it to me in very simple terms. Or are these people deniers? Or anti-vaxxers? Or just themselves deluded whackdoodles?

But hey, that Covid is nothing, barely even real. So what if in one year it has killed a lot more Americans than were American soldiers killed in all of WWII - but that's probably fake news, right, @Bartricks, @fishfry, @Book273?

And while we're at it, all those other activities that supposedly get people killed, like driving and having guns. We don't need no stinkin' traffic laws or any laws at all about guns. Smoking? Let everyone light up? And so forth. Those people getting sick or dying - all fake news.

Or maybe these are people that, because none of theirs got sick or died, they just conclude that it's all a hoax. Like all those school shootings that didn't actually happen, but were acted out by Democrats who just want to take your guns. So what is it, geniuses? People who actually know this stuff say one thing, you another. Make clear here why you are not morons. Because pending your corrections, that's what you are.

Trips

In the end the lockdowns will kill far more people than the virus ever did — fishfry

Can you elaborate on this? Interested on how lockdowns, in themselves, will kill more people.

T Clark

Well, isn't that the situation we're all in with the pandemic? We know that if we associate with others, there's a risk we'll get the virus or, if we unknowingly have it already, pass it on to others. But, well, so long as we all know this, surely no one has the right to stop us associating if we want to? — Bartricks

You doodle around for a few paragraphs then you finally get down to this. It's not that you take a chance on dying, it's that you take a chance on passing the disease on to others. There's a long history of government putting restrictions on people's behavior for a public health purpose. You can't dump your sewage into the river that passes through your property. Your children can't go to school unless they get their vaccinations. You can't smoke in public places. It's my understanding that New York City made ordinances against spitting to stop the spread of tuberculosis. You can't let toxic substances from you industrial processes into the air.

Maybe you think these are not justified or are unethical. If so, it's too late. This fight is over. It has been determined that the government has the authority to take these actions.

Whether or not lockdowns are needed in this situation is another question which I'm not addressing here. That's an issue of how the results of science are applied to political decisions. That is very interesting to me, but it's not the subject at hand.

One thing I will say - a lockdown is a very intrusive and disruptive action. It has severe consequences. Fighting the need to have those restrictions is legitimate. Masks, on the other hand, are an inconvenience. To equate the two or to somehow claim being required to wear a mask is a violation of your rights is a joke. Just put on the damn mask.

BC

↪Bartricks

HIV & AIDS presented a similar problem for gay men from roughly June of 1981 going forward. (June 1, '81 is when the first cases were described.). As the disease became more familiar, we had to decide what it was worth to us to have frequent sex with many different partners. Many of us decided it was worth enough to continue, even if with more caution. Condoms (not masks) were very strongly recommended. Civil authorities eventually intruded into the gay male environment by closing down many of the venues which facilitated easy sex. Lots of education was conducted, deliberately and accidentally (in the press). (Grindr hand't appeared yet.).

It took maybe a decade for a solid consensus to form about safe sex, condoms, HIV testing, and so on.

In contrast to the 40 years of HIV (which has not disappeared) the process of consensus guided behavior for Covid-19 developed far quicker--about 12 months. It developed rapidly because, unlike AIDS, anybody and everybody could catch Covid-19 unless they were scrupulously careful about exposure.

Communicable diseases, whether they spread through the air or through precious bodily fluids, are always a community affair. So yes, people should avoid exposing themselves and others to Covid-19. And yes, the dive bar you were going to go to on your suicide errand should be closed for the duration.

Had public health measures been taken to suppress HIV that were as vigorous as Covid 19, many of the 700,000 Americans who died of AIDS in the last 40 years would have lived. 18,000 Americans still die of AIDS every year, even though we can now prevent most of those deaths.

The deaths of at least 530,000 people from Covid 19 in one year is enough to lower the average life span of Americans.s

Just put your fucking mask on and stay the hell away from everybody else -- 6 feet. And wash your hands, too. Get the vaccine, too, or else. Can you manage all that?

BC

↪Trips

Fishfry is a nice guy, but the quoted statement is BS.

fishfry

But hey, that Covid is nothing, barely even real. So what if in one year it has killed a lot more Americans than were American soldiers killed in all of WWII - but that's probably fake news, right, — tim wood

This is exactly the kind of mindless response I expected. I pulled a few links in support of the point I made, which you can read or not. The links reference reports by the likes of the UN and UNICEF and other reputable sources of information. I say again: In the end, the lockdowns will kill more people than the virus. I stand by this claim. Any fair minded person can see that I did not say the things you imputed to me. You can also look up the statistics on excess global deaths for 2020, which are barely above normal.

https://unglobalcompact.org/take-action/20th-anniversary-campaign/covid-related%20hunger-could-kill-more-people-than-the-virus

https://www.internationalaffairs.org.au/australianoutlook/lockdowns-could-kill-more-people-than-covid-19/

https://fortune.com/2021/01/06/covid-pandemic-recession-unemployment-mortality-rate-increase/

https://www.axios.com/navarro-coronavirus-lockdown-ef2a1335-661b-4f8b-a3a4-79af244f9bbf.html

https://bylinetimes.com/2021/01/12/do-lockdowns-kill-more-people-than-they-save-how-quickly-can-the-economy-bounce-back/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/unicef-warns-lockdown-could-kill-covid-19-model-predicts-12/

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/seeing-the-invisible/estimating-the-true-magnitude-of-the-pandemic-and-lockdown-deaths-part-1/

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/company/corporate-trends/lengthy-lockdown-will-kill-more-people-than-covid-murthy/articleshow/75459491.cms?from=mdr

fishfry

Fishfry is a nice guy, but the quoted statement is BS. — Bitter Crank

Please see my response to @tim wood above. I stand by my claim.

Do people have any idea of the effects of the lockdown on substance abuse, domestic violence, child suicides? Some more links on the latter. You can Google dozens of more stories like this. It's shameful that so many well-meaning people are hypnotized into ignorance by the mainstream hysteria.

We're also starting to see statistical evidence that lockdowns weren't all that effective. For example Florida and California had similar outcomes even though Cali was locked down tight and Florida much more loose. You'll see more information coming out along these lines in the coming months.

Finally as I said in my previous post, excess global deaths aren't much greater for 2020 than they otherwise would have been. When an 80 year old with cancer and pneumonia dies of (or with) covid, they would have died anyway. And a large plurality (if not outright majority) of covid deaths were among old people with multiple comorbidities. 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.

Toxic lockdown' sees huge rise in babies harmed or killed". This is from that well-known conspiracy theory site, the BBC.
https://www.bbc.com/news/education-54827702

"Child Suicides Rising During Lockdown" from WebMD. Another notorious site from covid deniers.
https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20210210/child-suicides-rising-during-lockdown

"Child Psychiatrists Warn That The Pandemic May Be Driving Up Kids' Suicide Risk" from NPR. Oh NPR, they're the worst. The Devil's very playground.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/02/02/962060105/child-psychiatrists-warn-that-the-pandemic-may-be-driving-up-kids-suicide-risk

"Child suicides are rising during lockdown: Watch for the warning signs"
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2021-02-child-suicides-lockdown.html\

"Escalating Suicide Rates Among School Children During COVID-19 Pandemic and Lockdown Period: An Alarming Psychosocial Issue"
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0253717620982514

Fishfry is a nice guy — Bitter Crank

Aw shucks.

Can you elaborate on this? Interested on how lockdowns, in themselves, will kill more people. — Trips

Please see the links in this post and my previous one. You can easily find many more by typing "lockdown deaths" and "child suicide lockdowns" and similar phrases into the search engine of your choice. And thank you for simply asking for background and supporting evidence, rather than parroting mindless hysteria and false accusatios like certain people I could name, @tim wood.

tim wood

↪fishfry

A quick scan of your references shows me that what I have come to expect of such surveys is true with those you've provided; that is, they are, in sum, with respect to your arguments, nonsense. Here is about the best I could find,

"There are two types of lockdown deaths. The harms of omission are deaths that were not averted because the risk-based approach was inverted with a focus on low-risk groups instead of on the high-risk groups. For example, in Victoria in Australia the government failed to provide N95 masks in high-risk settings but focused, instead, on trying to stop the spread of the virus among low-risk groups.

The harms of commission of lockdowns are of two types. First, there are the severe mental harms, amounting to torture when people are locked indoor for months at a time. There are many non-fatal consequences of these mental health issues, such as increased self-harm by children. Second, due to the fear, terror and hysteria created by lockdowns, many people in critical health condition did not seek or get timely health check-ups and treatment, leading, for instance, to a spurt in heart-related deaths in 2020. There are also enormous long-term health harms from the compulsion to stay indoors for months on end."

You are clearly a smart guy If you cannot see the problems with these in terms of your claims, then stick to math. What I saw of the other references was worse. So if you've got anything worth reading, copy and paste it here or at least refer to it explicitly. So far you've got nothing, and it's more than a little disturbing that you think you do.

fishfry

There are many non-fatal consequences of these mental health issues, such as increased self-harm by children. — tim wood

Well the hell with the kids then. They ain't dead so eff 'em.

So far you've got nothing, and it's more than a little disturbing that you think you do. — tim wood

I stand by what I wrote and expect to be vindicated by history once the hysteria passes. Compared to the Spanish flu of 1918, covid has been very minor in terms of excess deaths. The death rate is far far lower than we were initially told. There has been a sickening lack of thoughtfulness in the actions and public pronouncements of politicians and public health officials. I expect people to understand this point of view more over the next few years as people being to put this all into perspective. Right now I'm standing in the middle of a witch burning with a bucket of water. It's futile but the viewpoint needs to be expressed regardless. More important now, when it's unpopular, than a few years from now when it will be obvious in retrospect.

The overreaction and politicization have been horrible. Consider if nothing else that one week anti-mask demonstrations were evil, and the very next week BLM ~~riots~~ mostly peaceful demonstrations were just oh-so-safe. One week we get propaganda photos of nurses standing in front of cars to confront anti-maskers; the very next week, photos of nurses protesting police brutality. A thoughtful and independent person like myself knows that a virus doesn't discriminate based on politics. Can't you recognize politicized media coverage when it's right in front of you?

stick to math — tim wood

We live in an age of tremendous political conformity. Step out of line and get cancelled. I wonder why so many are ok with it. It's worse than the 1950's. Our only hope is to remember that the children of the 50's turned into the hippies. The 2030's are going to be wild.

Banno

Is there something about pandemic, contagion, mortality rates these geniuses do not understand? — tim wood

It's also ethics they don't understand. Ethics involves care for others; that seems to be beyond their comprehension.

fishfry

Ethics involves care for others; that seems to be beyond their comprehension. — Banno

That's a really nasty remark with little or no thought behind it. Don't you have compassion for the victims of the lockdown? It's a lot like environmentalism. Every time you reduce the parts-per-million of pollutants in the air, the liberals in NY and LA are happy. And a few hundred thousand third-worlders die of malnutrition secondary to rising energy costs. A lot of people hide behind compassion out of an excess of arrogant thoughtlessness.

Banno

↪fishfry

Bullshit. They are selfish dicks.

fishfry

Bullshit. They are selfish dicks. — Banno

Bullshit bullshit bullshit. People who think they know better but don't are a great source of evil in the world. You know that liberal condescension is the greatest knee on the neck of black people in this country for the last 60 years. Read the Moynahan report. He pretty much got cancelled for writing it and never mentioned it again.

You don't know what you don't know, friend. Thoughtless do-gooders have killed more people than the actually evil ones.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Negro_Family:_The_Case_For_National_Action

https://www.blackpast.org/african-american-history/moynihan-report-1965/

Banno

'Mercans. Fucksake.

I am far more at risk from social violence now than I was 18 months ago. — Book273

You may be right. Walk down the streets of Melbourne without a mask and folk will yell things like "Put a mask on, you fuckin' dickhead".

Of course, you could always just put on a mask.

fishfry

They are selfish dicks. — Banno

If you can dial down the insults for a moment, is it selfish of me to care about the locked down kids killing themselves because the can't go to school? The fentanyl deaths even right here in my little town? Not to mention the horrendous effects on the third world due to the disruptions in the global supply chain. When food prices go up, I pay a little more at the grocery. Impoverished peasants die.

Does caring about these things, or calling attention to them, make me a selfish dick? I'm asking you. Can't you see past the hysterical propaganda to the far more complex and nuanced reality underneath?

BC

↪fishfry

I would not want to minimize the consequences of the lockdown. While I am an old guy and don't get around much any more (every day is a sort of lockdown), that's not true of younger people. Some people think the shutdown in Minnesota contributed to the ferocity of the riots last may that did so much damage, and the crime wave that has followed. I'm not sure about that, but it seems plausible. I'm sure the lockdown has been quite emotionally distressing to children and youth.

The lockdown was an economic disaster for service workers in closed businesses -- absolutely no doubt about that. Use of food shelves has been very high. Homelessness has increased too.

Still, 530,000 dead from Covid-19 in the US is unlikely to be matched by deaths from domestic turmoil caused by the lockdown. 2.6 million Covid deaths world-wide is more than a blip on the radar, but it's a fraction of world deaths from all causes. By contrast, in the 1918 Influenza Epidemic, about 1/3 of the world's population became infected with influenza and around 50 million died -- that at a time when world population was significantly smaller than now -- below 2B. 50 million dead from influenza was close to a doubling of total deaths world wide.

I didn't look at your list of links -- too late just now to do that, bed time coming up. But I still think the strategic business closures, social distancing, mask wearing, and avoidance of group gatherings helped.

One reason for thinking that it helped, is that there are many reports of reduced colds, flu, and such.

Banno

Can't you see past the hysterical propaganda to the far more complex and nuanced reality underneath? — fishfry

:rofl:

BC

The fentanyl deaths even right here in my little town? — fishfry

But fentanyl, oxycodone, heroine, meth, other drugs, and alcohol have been a leading cause of death in the affected demographic for 2 or 3 years, at least -- haven't they?

fishfry

I would not want to minimize the consequences of the lockdown. — Bitter Crank

Careful, you're going to end up in the same barrel of opprobrium that I stepped into. Whatever you do, don't be thoughtful. Hey seriously I'm feeling a little bruised. Thanks for the rationality.

While I am an old guy and don't get around much any more (every day is a sort of lockdown), — Bitter Crank

Me too, the funny thing is that my own personal lifestyle barely changed this past year. How pathetic is that!

that's not true of younger people. Some people think the shutdown in Minnesota contributed to the ferocity of the riots last may that did so much damage, and the crime wave that has followed. I'm not sure about that, but it seems plausible. I'm sure the lockdown has been quite emotionally distressing to children and youth. — Bitter Crank

You tell the kids they can't go to the bar but they can go to the riot. So you get riots. And peaceful protests that turn into riots once the Antifa maniacs (all middle-class white kids) start burning things down.

The lockdown was an economic disaster for service workers in closed businesses -- absolutely no doubt about that. Use of food shelves has been very high. Homelessness has increased too. — Bitter Crank

Yes but you see coastal liberals don't give a shit about working people. They used to, the old Wobblies and the labor movement was supported by leftists. Today leftists don't care at all about working people. Bunch of deplorable racists. Part of the corruption of liberals I rail about. Frosts my butt because I used to be a liberal. Still am. It's the liberals who changed. I care about the working people destroyed by the lockdowns. And for this I get called a "selfish dick." Thanks @@Banno, you should know better and you should be ashamed of what's happened to liberalism. Liberals used to care about working people. That was a long time ago.

Still, 530,000 dead from Covid-19 in the US is unlikely to be matched by deaths from domestic turmoil caused by the lockdown. 2.6 million Covid deaths world-wide is more than a blip on the radar, but it's a fraction of world deaths from all causes. — Bitter Crank

Yes, I don't discount or deny the deaths. It DOES happen to be the case that a lot of those people died WITH covid and not FROM it, and that global net excess deaths aren't going to turn out nearly as bad as people think, because for the most part only old people died of covid. Yes there's anecdotal evidence of young deaths, but for the most part it's people who were going to die anyway of something else.

By contrast, in the 1918 Influenza Epidemic, about 1/3 of the world's population became infected with influenza and around 50 million died -- that at a time when world population was significantly smaller than now -- below 2B. 50 million dead from influenza was close to a doubling of total deaths world wide. — Bitter Crank

My point exactly. Thanks so much. I really appreciate your response. I took more personal abuse than I was expecting for the fundamentally obvious points I was making. Percentage-wise in terms of fataility rates, total deaths, and excess deaths, all of that versus the effects of the lockdowns, in the end I stand by my initial remarks and wish some of my detractors would put some thought into the matter.

I didn't look at your list of links -- too late just now to do that, bed time coming up. But I still think the strategic business closures, social distancing, mask wearing, and avoidance of group gatherings helped — Bitter Crank

We'll see! You can find anecdotal evidence that masking and lockdowns function more as a means of social signaling than health preservation. We'll have to way for the politicized statistics to roll in over the next couple of years.

Thanks much for your post.

fishfry

But fentanyl, oxycodone, heroine, meth, other drugs, and alcohol have been a leading cause of death in the affected demographic for 2 or 3 years, at least -- haven't they? — Bitter Crank

I believe the numbers are up this year. A lot of statistical sifting will happen over the next couple of years and maybe people will get more perspective. But you know flu deaths are way down this year. Why is that? Well masks and social distancing and lockdowns, maybe. And maybe a lot of flu deaths were recorded as covid. The diseases look similar and you can make anyone have a positive covid test by running enough PCR cycles.

fishfry

:rofl: — Banno

Grrrr snarl rowrrorrwrnrrrowr

fishfry

"I went down to the demonstration ... to get my fair share of abuse ..."

I'll close for the evening by linking and quoting a nice article by Jonathan Sumption, writing in The Telegraph.

https://archive.is/WDOBR

Liberal democracy will be the biggest casualty of this pandemic
The state's unprecedented overreach has fundamentally altered the unwritten conventions that underpin our political system

What makes us a free society is that, although the state has vast powers, there are conventional limits on what it can do with them. The limits are conventional because they do not depend on our laws but on our attitudes. There are islands of human life which are our own, a personal space into which the state should not intrude without some altogether exceptional justification.
Liberal democracy breaks down when frightened majorities demand mass coercion of their fellow citizens, and call for our personal spaces to be invaded. These demands are invariably based on what people conceive to be the public good. They all assert that despotism is in the public interest.

and ...

I do not doubt that there are extreme situations in which oppressive controls over our daily lives may be necessary and justified: an imminent threat of invasion, for example, or a violent general insurrection. Some health crises may qualify, such as a major epidemic of smallpox (case mortality about 30 per cent) or Ebola (about 50 per cent).
Covid-19 is serious, but it is not in that category or even close. It is well within the range of perils which we have always had to live with, and always will. According to government figures, more than 99 per cent of people who get Covid survive. The great majority will not even get seriously ill. The average age at which people die of Covid-19 is 82, which is close to the average age at which people die anyway.

Much more in the article. Instead of venting your spleen at the likes of me, take a deep breath and give this article a read.

https://archive.is/WDOBR

Bartricks

↪tim wood

Your reply seems incoherent and doesn't address anything I argued.

Tzeentch

Just put your fucking mask on and stay the hell away from everybody else -- 6 feet. And wash your hands, too. Get the vaccine, too, or else. Can you manage all that? — Bitter Crank

No.

Bartricks

↪T Clark

You can lock yourself down if you want. If you don't want to be exposed to a risk of getting a virus from innocent carriers, don't go out. No one is making you associate with others.
Most people would rather keep their jobs than avoid being exposed to the risk of infection. Evidence: if there were no lockdowns, most people would still go to work rather than locking down personally and losing their jobs. Now who are you to decide that no, despite this they should be forced to lockdown even if it costs them their jobs? Lock yourself down if the virus risk worries you that much, but don't insist others do the same. Let people decide for themselves bossy boots

Bartricks

↪Bitter Crank

You have ignored the argument I made and your example of HIV works against you.
My argument works regardless of the numbers of deaths involved. 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? Are you entitled to make them take the cure? No. Yet in that scenario everyone apart from you dies.
My argument is not about numbers. It works just the same if the risk of death is 100%.
As for HIV- presumably you think that sex should be banned until we can cure it, yes?

Bartricks

Imagine that among us there are a small minority of people who lack sufficient self control to be able to resist acting on their sexual urges (you don't need to imagine it - it's outside your window). Now, does this mean that everyone should be made to wear burkhas when in public so as to minimize the number of sexual assaults?
No.
Why? I mean, there's no question such a policy would reduce such assaults. So why would it nevertheless be unjust?

Bartricks

What about starting a business? That's really bad for your health. There's a very good chance that you'll go bust and go bust through bad luck alone. And if you don't go bust, that'll just inspire others to start businesses - and a lot of them will go bust through no fault of the business owners. So if we allow people to start businesses there will be an epidemic of bad luck bankruptcies. So we had better stop people doing that.

Lockdowns and rights

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions