[leereeves]

It's definitely not orthogonal to how you live your life; their very purpose is to limit how you live your life in order to prevent/reduce behaviors that spread disease. For example, they issue quarantine orders.[1]

People understand that is their mission. Some find it scary.

Everyone has a different threshold at which they start to object to the CDC overriding people's freedom in the pursuit of disease control, but everyone will object at some point. For example, would you accept a Shanghai-style lockdown?

1: https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/pdf/Public-Health-Order_Gener...

[mullingitover]

> their very purpose is to limit how you live your life

Their purpose is to increase the overall duration of healthy life we have, both individually and in aggregate. Limiting how you live your life is, again, orthogonal to that.

For example, how is their campaign to control mosquitos and eradicate malaria in the US limiting how you live your life?

[jimmydorry]

I'm going to assume that you are discussing in good faith, as per the HackerNews commenting guidelines, and did not deliberately pick a specific CDC campaign as a strawman.

The CDC's campaign to control mosquitos and eradicate malaria in the US probably does not limit how people are living their lives, but ordering an immediate nationwide halt on evictions of any renter for nonpayment of rent would be an example of applying limitations on people.

[Brybry]

To be fair, the national eviction moratorium was ruled illegal/not a power that the CDC has.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/21a23_ap6c.pdf

[jtbayly]

Precisely. The group that is willing to illegally order you to do things they have no right to order is also tracking you. But no biggie.

[drekk]

Say the thing they ordered. They didn't allow evicting millions of Americans during winter in a global pandemic. They're also tracking people to make sure lockdown guidelines were followed. Of course Americans could not follow a guideline to save their lives, and now over a million preventably dead Americans get to be summarily forgotten because the real victim was your ability to go to a bar or concert when hospitals were renting refrigerated trucks to hold bodies.

But no biggie.

[mullingitover]

I find it pretty encouraging that of all the possible examples of the CDC using its statutory authority you could think of, the example that comes to mind is that they took away a person's freedom to be evicted.

[conradev]

The goal of public health is to increase overall health, yes, but that goal can easily conflict with individual freedoms. For example, smoking bans:

> Supporters argue by presenting evidence that smoking is one of the major killers, and that therefore governments have a duty to reduce the death rate, both through limiting passive (second-hand) smoking and by providing fewer opportunities for people to smoke. Opponents say that this undermines individual freedom and personal responsibility, and worry that the state may be encouraged to remove more and more choice in the name of better population health overall.

The main thing that public health agencies do is promote healthy behaviors, like, for example, washing your hands. You could say that their primary goal is convincing you to “live your life” in a healthy way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_health

[tragictrash]

It feels like your living in some strange alternate reality. What are you talking about? How is the CDC 'overriding freedom'?

They collect data and make recommendations.

The rest of the world is out here waiting for you, please wake up. We need everyone to make this work.

[peyton]

The CDC also enacts regulations under Section 361. Some of them, like the rent/eviction freeze, arguably encroached upon “freedom.”

[leereeves]

> What are you talking about?

The CDC's mission is fundamentally the same as the mission of the Chinese disease control agency. The difference is how that mission is balanced against people's freedom to live their lives.

Please don't misunderstand; that doesn't mean that I oppose everything they do. Everything they do limits freedom, but sometimes that is necessary.

[nradov]

Which specific limits on freedom are necessary? What are the criteria for determining necessity?

[ethbr0]

Those which reduce mortality rate below a desired threshold.

It's a scientific question as to whether a specific limit on freedom (of movement, of contact, etc.) is effective.

But it's a general approximation that greater freedoms mean higher mortality rates during lethal pandemics. And vice versus.

What level of mortality we're prepared to accept, and what level of limitations on freedom, is a political question in a democracy.

[leereeves]

> Which specific limits on freedom are necessary?

That's the eternal question. Not just for disease control, but for everything.

> What are the criteria for determining necessity?

In a democracy, ultimately: elections.

[bally0241]

Not only are they completely unnecessary, but more importantly many of your so-called "limits on freedom" are blatantly unconstitutional and illegal.