[timr]

"Disregarding the guidance of health professionals such as wearing a mask and socially distancing means endangering other people's lives."

...which isn't different than any other year.

Every year, the flu kills tens of thousands (in the US -- higher worldwide). Disproportionately children.

Every year, driving kills hundreds of thousands, even when you exclude the effects of alcohol.

Every year, people have sex without condoms, and pass on harmful -- possibly fatal -- viruses.

Every year, millions of people die from communicable disease of every sort, ranging from pneumonia to HIV.

This is the first time in my life that we've tried to apply transitive risk logic to justify curtailing of individual freedoms. Masks are one thing, but telling people that they can't have family gatherings because it might hurt you?

This seems wrong to me. You can use this logic to justify literally any curtailment of personal freedom.

[goostavos]

>This is the first time in my life that we've tried to apply transitive risk logic to justify curtailing of individual freedoms.

Seems wrong to me, too. There exists no society (that I'm aware of) where the decisions of an individual don't have second or third order effects on other members of the society. We manage and deal with this risk every day of our lives. Sometimes it flat out sucks. However, you can't control for it without raising a lot of very, very uncomfortable questions about what personal choices get to be made, by whom, and under which conditions.

This boils down to how you see the world, I guess. Much like any of the usual contentious political topics, both 'camps' view the other side as morally reprehensible.

[3JPLW]

I'm not "free" to ignore stop signs, stop lights, and speed limits. They impact my freedom to drive as I'd wish -- because otherwise I might hurt you.

I'm not "free" to start cooking commercially out of my home kitchen without inspections and licensing. This impacts my ability to earn an income -- because otherwise I might make you sick.

It's public health risk mitigation. We do it all the time.

[timr]

"It's public health risk mitigation. We do it all the time."

Not responsive to the argument. You might hurt me in any other year, too. We don't tell people to avoid their families at thanksgiving, stop going into the office, etc. "all the time". It's unique. This year.

The flu is about as dangerous to me as SARS-CoV2, for example. How many years of your life, so far, have you avoided seeing your family at holidays in order to protect me?

Cars are also more dangerous to me than SARS-CoV2. How many years of your life have you avoided automobiles, because you might kill me in an accident?

The logic is the same. You may feel as though there is a justification for telling people not to see their families at Thanksgiving, but that's your opinion. Other people have different opinions, and they're equally valid.

[3JPLW]

It's not just about protecting you, though. It's also about protecting our limited healthcare resources.

Every year I get the flu shot to protect me, you, and our shared healthcare.

[timr]

It's the same argument, and shifting the objective to "healthcare resources" doesn't make it any more responsive than before.

I (like many people) am at ~zero risk of serious disease, so we're back to the same transitive logic: apparently my catching a virus is morally equivalent to overloading the healthcare system, because I might give it to someone who is at risk. Well, likewise: you risk putting someone else in the hospital by catching the flu. Has it stopped you from living before?

And of course, there is a matter of degree: getting a seasonal shot is one thing; demanding that people avoid seeing their families is entirely another.

Finally, consider that every young, healthy person who gets this virus is afterward immune, and contributes to overall population immunity. Therefore, getting the virus and recovering from it is a positive outcome for society. This is offset by some small risk of transmission, of course, but that's a manageable risk. After all, masks and social distancing work, right?

[no-s]

>>After all, masks and social distancing work, right?

funny how critical examination of that premise is not allowed.

[otterley]

Of course it's allowed. But you should come armed with epidemiological data that contradicts the evidence and studies already out there. That's the language that epidemiologists speak. And extraordinary claims that contradict both the data and common sense require extraordinary evidence.

Merely questioning it without a plausible explanation that is consistent with the existing data is a distraction. Why should anyone listen to you if that's all you've got?