|
|
|
|
|
|
by curryst
2069 days ago
|
|
|
> In Canada Unis opened up, there were house parties, dorm parties, bars with drunk student what the goddam hell were they thinking? How about: nobody in your house/dorm unless they live there, 'outdoor beer gardens' only, limit 2 beers. Have a 'dance party' in a big open parking lot to break the social malaise. Otherwise threaten expel students who break the established rules for putting other people's lives at risk. They were thinking "My risk from COVID is exceptionally low, as is the risk of everyone I live with." I don't understand why this seems crazy to anyone. More college students die from suicide every year than would die if they all got COVID (in the US, assuming that current mortality rates hold). Many colleges are even self-contained, in a way, because they're a "college town" wherein everything revolves around the college. If there were a single group of people that I would say were in a good demographic to be out of quarantine, it would be college students. They're unlikely to die from the disease, they're far less likely to live with someone in a risky group, and they're old enough to make a decision on whether they want to quarantine or not. They're also unlikely to overwhelm medical services, given the rate that they're asymptomatic at. |
|
|
? Because it's contagious and when cut loose cases literally widespread death, massive economic peril and joblessness ?
Why is that so hard to understand?
Do people not feel any responsibility for others they infect with potentially deadly pathogens that spread to large numbers of people?
We're not that hugely concerned about 'other people taking small risks' - the issue is the externalization.
Frat Houses can drink '24 beers' and visit the hospital, okay, 'it's their body' ... but the issue with COVID is mostly systematic.
We don't care that you as an individual want to bring 'Deadly Asian Wasps' into North America, it's not a big deal, but by introducing them, you'll cause calamity as they spread through the region causing mayhem. Or like setting a 'small fire' in a dry forest.
I'm struggling to understand how people think a their contagion is a 'personal choice'.
People who think about 'personal choice and living with the consequences' may want to contemplate the liability in such a situation: you hit someone's car - you owe them the repairs. Imagine if you had to pay for someone's healthcare if you were to 'infect them'. Instead of passing 'mask laws' maybe liability laws could be passed -> you infect someone, they sue you for $50-500K. We'd literally have to buy insurance for that, and one of the criteria for insurance would be 'mask wearing' - if you 'wear a mask' your 'infection liability insurance' premiums would be 1/2. It's obviously not going to work, point being it illustrates the systematic issue here, it's not 'personal risk taking'.