Jump to content

Pondering the morality of quarantine regulation


bernorange

Recommended Posts

I got to thinking about the possibility of a coronavirus outbreak here in the USA - in my backyard - and the likelyhood of government efforts to contain the virus by quarantining folks.  I searched and found a page on the CDC website pertaining to quarantine regulations which states:

Quote

Isolation and quarantine help protect the public by preventing exposure to people who have or may have a contagious disease.

  • Isolation separates sick people with a quarantinable communicable disease from people who are not sick.
  • Quarantine separates and restricts the movement of people who were exposed to a contagious disease to see if they become sick.

In addition to serving as medical functions, isolation and quarantine also are “police power” functions, derived from the right of the state to take action affecting individuals for the benefit of society.

Federal Law

The federal government derives its authority for isolation and quarantine from the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Under section 361 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S. Code § 264), the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized to take measures to prevent the entry and spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the United States and between states.

The authority for carrying out these functions on a daily basis has been delegated to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

...

https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/specificlawsregulations.html

It seems a bit of a stretch to me to justify quarantines on the basis of interstate trade, even when folks are traveling between states.  But that leads me to the issue at hand - where is the line drawn (either morally or legally) for when the state may "take action affecting individuals for the benefit of society".  Are individuals morally responsible for the butterfly effect of transmission of an infectuous disease?  Are individuals responsible for their own health?  Where is the line limiting government from totalitarian control of the populace over this pretext?  I mean the common flu is a communicable disease.  I imagine there are any number of communicable diseases which are prevalent and persistent in society which could be the basis for government action on these grounds.

I might be slightly drunk.  Cheers.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just google measles quarantine (from last summer) and you'll see that typically it was a local government who made the call through a city or county health department. So, something widespread that the Fed gets involved in is sure to go over well. (NOT)

Of the people who were quarantined last year, several decided the quarantine was too strict and ignored it and sent their children to yeshiva, school, etc. IIRC one group sued but that was over requiring vaccinations (Coronavirus doesn't have one obviously). Part of the problem was that parents were deliberately exposing their children to the measles to provide immunity/get it over with. I don't know that would be the case this time around, but you get science deniers involved anywhere in the discussion, and contagion will travel like lightning.

When one of the counties threatened people who ignored the order regarding staying out of public spaces, the fine was $2000 but I don't know if it was enforced. Measles is highly contagious, and while the communities that were mostly affected were insular religious groups such as the ultra Orthodox Jews, in some ways I would guess it is a small sample of how many might react.

Measles did involve vaccinating children which is a hot topic, but I can imagine in our current divisive state of affairs much scapegoating, blame, shame and welcoming of taking away the rights of some while chafing under restrictions for others. (The rules for thee not for me effect)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Texas the county judges make the call on local quarantines, then it us up to the governor when multiple county quarantines are needed. The Federal government acts as an advisor.

At least that is the way it worked when I worked at DSHS and we did state drills.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bernorange said:

I got to thinking about the possibility of a coronavirus outbreak here in the USA - in my backyard - and the likelyhood of government efforts to contain the virus by quarantining folks.  I searched and found a page on the CDC website pertaining to quarantine regulations which states:

https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/specificlawsregulations.html

It seems a bit of a stretch to me to justify quarantines on the basis of interstate trade, even when folks are traveling between states.  But that leads me to the issue at hand - where is the line drawn (either morally or legally) for when the state may "take action affecting individuals for the benefit of society".  Are individuals morally responsible for the butterfly effect of transmission of an infectuous disease?  Are individuals responsible for their own health?  Where is the line limiting government from totalitarian control of the populace over this pretext?  I mean the common flu is a communicable disease.  I imagine there are any number of communicable diseases which are prevalent and persistent in society which could be the basis for government action on these grounds.

I might be slightly drunk.  Cheers.

That brings up another thought. We are a litigious society and that is a deterrent for many harmful social interactions, but we really offer few legal ramifications for the person who is sick and still goes to work or school and spreads illness everywhere.  You could go to your office with Ebola and kill everyone there, but you'd face more legal consequences for going in and hitting them with a baseball bat. 

Edited by FondrenRoad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Generally speaking, the federal government lacks a police power, which is probably where this falls.  Interstate commerce has become a de facto police power clause, though.

But this is one of those examples where at first blush, a federal response seems to be the thing to do, for uniformity and convenience' sake.  But, local officials have, for the most part, responded adequately to similar threats in the past, with federal assistance.

We probably ought to adopt this mode more frequently.

The constitution, through the civil rights laws, places limitations on how strict or draconian the quarantine restrictions can be.  The particular right or set of rights abridged by the quarantine determine what kind of scrutiny the quarantine gets.

This is the legal framework, which represents a form of morality, but doesn't address the question of morality vel non.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Generally speaking, the federal government lacks a police power, which is probably where this falls.  Interstate commerce has become a de facto police power clause, though.

But this is one of those examples where at first blush, a federal response seems to be the thing to do, for uniformity and convenience' sake.  But, local officials have, for the most part, responded adequately to similar threats in the past, with federal assistance.

We probably ought to adopt this mode more frequently.

The constitution, through the civil rights laws, places limitations on how strict or draconian the quarantine restrictions can be.  The particular right or set of rights abridged by the quarantine determine what kind of scrutiny the quarantine gets.

This is the legal framework, which represents a form of morality, but doesn't address the question of morality vel non.

States have enforced vaccinations during outbreaks effectively.  They've also managed to quarantine individuals coming from epidemic zones.  However, I'm not sure they have the expertise to handle a true local quarantine of a virus with a high mortality rate. Local law enforcement is also far more likely to flee themselves than enforce a quarantine if mortality rates are up over 25%.  It's been a very long time since there was a true killer pandemic. The Spanish flu was probably the last, but its high total death numbers were due more to the fact that it was almost completely uncontained rather than an exceptionally high mortality rate. 

MERS still looks potentially worse than Wuhan Coronavirus to me. Higher mortality rate than Spanish flu, but has been largely contained thus far.  We would absolutely need federal involvement if local authorities didn't hold it to patient one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

States have enforced vaccinations during outbreaks effectively.  They've also managed to quarantine individuals coming from epidemic zones.  However, I'm not sure they have the expertise to handle a true local quarantine of a virus with a high mortality rate. Local law enforcement is also far more likely to flee themselves than enforce a quarantine if mortality rates are up over 25%.  It's been a very long time since there was a true killer pandemic. The Spanish flu was probably the last, but its high total death numbers were due more to the fact that it was almost completely uncontained rather than an exceptionally high mortality rate. 

MERS still looks potentially worse than Wuhan Coronavirus to me. Higher mortality rate than Spanish flu, but has been largely contained thus far.  We would absolutely need federal involvement if local authorities didn't hold it to patient one. 

I guess we have the military and martial law for that type of eventuality.

As most know, I have kind of a boner for creeping federal power.  I think we create federal solutions too often and too easily.  I freely admit that sometimes it's the only viable solution, but I think we should pause more often before the congresscritters act for their greater glory.

This is a great example of a "national" problem that gets handled locally pretty well for the most part.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've had a few more drinks, so interpret accordingly...

2 hours ago, RPM said:

(video)...

Wat?

2 hours ago, Bookman said:

I think it stems from the fact that we don’t want a lot of people to fucking die.

So, your statement implies that we as individuals are responsible for the butterfly effect - that if we transmit a communicable disease to another person and that person either dies, or communicates it further until someone in the the B-tree children graph ends up dying is morally responsible.  Where is the tipping point for the fulcrum of acceptability on state power?  Is it based upon a tangible expectation of death probability?  We have all communicated infectuous diseases that probably killed some old fart at some point.  School children are the world's best Petri dishes.

1 hour ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Just google measles quarantine (from last summer) and you'll see that typically it was a local government who made the call through a city or county health department. So, something widespread that the Fed gets involved in is sure to go over well. (NOT) ...

Insightful post, and appreciated, but you didn't answer the questions posed.  I want to know what you think about the line between individual rights and government power over this issue.

1 hour ago, Continental Op said:

Well let's think back to the ebola thing for about five seconds and remember that the first goddamn thing every person who got it wanted to do was hop on a plane and fly somewhere for some reason. 

You do realize that there is an ebola outbreak still happening in Africa that has killed over 2,200 people (https://www.who.int/csr/don/20-february-2020-ebola-drc/en/), right?  None of those people hopped on a plane.  They died relatively ignorant in a war zone.  From what I've read, many contracted the disease because of ignorance and adherence to religious or cultural rituals with respect to handling of the dead. 

You also didn't address the questions raised, but I suspect you are full Machiavelli on this issue.

1 hour ago, Foosters said:

No Gestapo in Bastropo

Fuckin' A!

1 hour ago, RayDog said:

In Texas the county judges make the call on local quarantines, then it us up to the governor when multiple county quarantines are needed. The Federal government acts as an advisor.

At least that is the way it worked when I worked at DSHS and we did state drills.

Insightful, so thanks.  But you also didn't address the fundamental question.

1 hour ago, FondrenRoad said:

... You could go to your office with Ebola and kill everyone there, but you'd face more legal consequences for going in and hitting them with a baseball bat. 

So you are in the Ven Diagram circle that proclaims individuals are responsible for the butterfly effect coattails. 

1 hour ago, gmr548 said:

Quarantine is moral when it is used on the state of Oklahoma.

Fuck OU.

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

<blah blah blah> ...

This is the legal framework, which represents a form of morality, but doesn't address the question of morality vel non.

I've imbibed and this sentence is Greek (not Latin) to me.

40 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

...

MERS ....  We would absolutely need federal involvement if local authorities didn't hold it to patient one. 

You already answered with respect to your position in the Ven Diagram, but holy shit!  That's pretty extreme.  Can you elucidate a legal framework for when Fed powers should activate?  What's the threshold?

15 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

Only a return to the gold standard can stop the coronavirus.

Don't misinform the masses.  Colloidal silver is the virus killer.

9 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

...

This is a great example of a "national" problem that gets handled locally pretty well for the most part.

I remember back to Hurricane Harvey.  Neighbor next door (at that time) was a city councilman and very full of himself.  Acting like a general on a battlefield ordering soldiers around.  Only, we weren't his soldiers and fuck him.  Ruined a previously great relationship.  He ended up moving away.  But the lesson of power corrupts, even on the most local scale, hits home hard.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Public health has to be the number one concern.

Quarantines to protect a populace against a potential pandemic aren't in and of themselves immoral.  How the quarantine is carried out is where morality  (humanity, and civility) come into play.

Yeah from a purely moral perspective, I don't think anyone can really argue that a temporary imposition on the liberty of a few outweighs the safety of the many.

Also, that quarantine probably also corresponds to optimum medical care for the quarantined, it would seem unusually selfish and reckless to protest against it.

But yeah, the specifics and potential for abuse are where the issues arise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

A good overview of the topic from the American Bar Association:

https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/adminlaw/awardsprogram/08GSwinneressay.authcheckdam.pdf

Ultimately the author was opposed to a CDC regulation expanding the use of quarantines. 

Damn it!  I asked for your thoughts, not a reading assignment.  Pos rep anyway.  I'm sure I'll skim through it eventually.

1 minute ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Public health has to be the number one concern.

Quarantines to protect a populace against a potential pandemic aren't in and of themselves immoral....

That's a convoluted mess of logic friend.  Where is the line on individual responsibility?  Where do we (as the body republic) cede rights to the government on this issue?  How culpable is the individual for transmitting a communicable desease?  Does it depend upon the disease?  Upon the susceptibility or weakness of the neighboring populace?  Where is the line drawn?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Texas,  people intentionally transmitting disease can be charged with assault offenses up to murder.  Other states have statutes about certain diseases specifically, like HIV, Hep C, and STDs.  That's almost pure pearl-clutching, right there.

I don't think most criminal statutes attempt to reach negligent transmission of disease.

I dont know about civil negligence causes of action.  They'd probably fly in some jurisdictions, but probably not in Texas, which requires some sort of duty between plaintiff and defendant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

In Texas,  people intentionally transmitting disease ...

The examples listed require affirmative action to transmit, so the law and morality are clear.  It's a lot less clear when "intentionally transmitting" means just going about your day and living your life and zero interaction or intent is prevalent.  With respect to what we know fo the coronavirus, for example,. it can be transmitted when peeps are asymptomatic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, bernorange said:

 

That's a convoluted mess of logic friend.  Where is the line on individual responsibility?  Where do we (as the body republic) cede rights to the government on this issue?  How culpable is the individual for transmitting a communicable desease?  Does it depend upon the disease?  Upon the susceptibility or weakness of the neighboring populace?  Where is the line drawn?

A quarantine removes the individuals wishes and certain individual rights like freedom of movement, to come and go as you please. It's an across the board shut down of your individual rights with regard to a health crisis.

If an individual chooses to act recklessly, that's Their moral decision. The question was, are quarantines moral ?  My position is it's not a moral issue, it's a concern for the safety of the populace at large .  You don't decide when to cede your rights or not.  That's part of what gov'ts do, and what we give them the power to do as a society.

Edited by Onboard 2.0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, bernorange said:

Where the fuck did you learn civics?  Because that is absolute bullshit.

I'm sorry please show me where we vote about whether to enact a quarantine or not.  The general health, and welfare of the public is the responsibility of gov't.  That's kinda civics 101.  And you're parsing my comment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, bernorange said:

I've had a few more drinks, so interpret accordingly...

Wat?

So, your statement implies that we as individuals are responsible for the butterfly effect - that if we transmit a communicable disease to another person and that person either dies, or communicates it further until someone in the the B-tree children graph ends up dying is morally responsible.  Where is the tipping point for the fulcrum of acceptability on state power?  Is it based upon a tangible expectation of death probability?  We have all communicated infectuous diseases that probably killed some old fart at some point.  School children are the world's best Petri dishes.

Insightful post, and appreciated, but you didn't answer the questions posed.  I want to know what you think about the line between individual rights and government power over this issue.

You do realize that there is an ebola outbreak still happening in Africa that has killed over 2,200 people (https://www.who.int/csr/don/20-february-2020-ebola-drc/en/), right?  None of those people hopped on a plane.  They died relatively ignorant in a war zone.  From what I've read, many contracted the disease because of ignorance and adherence to religious or cultural rituals with respect to handling of the dead. 

You also didn't address the questions raised, but I suspect you are full Machiavelli on this issue.

Fuckin' A!

Insightful, so thanks.  But you also didn't address the fundamental question.

So you are in the Ven Diagram circle that proclaims individuals are responsible for the butterfly effect coattails. 

Fuck OU.

I've imbibed and this sentence is Greek (not Latin) to me.

You already answered with respect to your position in the Ven Diagram, but holy shit!  That's pretty extreme.  Can you elucidate a legal framework for when Fed powers should activate?  What's the threshold?

Don't misinform the masses.  Colloidal silver is the virus killer.

I remember back to Hurricane Harvey.  Neighbor next door (at that time) was a city councilman and very full of himself.  Acting like a general on a battlefield ordering soldiers around.  Only, we weren't his soldiers and fuck him.  Ruined a previously great relationship.  He ended up moving away.  But the lesson of power corrupts, even on the most local scale, hits home hard.

Hey I get it. Individual liberty at all times, right? But if you, as an individual, are fleeing the site of an epidemic with a high mortality rate and running toward other people, how close do those individuals have to let you get before they can shoot you in self defense?  Why should they consider you an acceptable risk?  Again, as individuals.  

To be honest, that just makes you seem like an inconsiderate asshole. Inconsiderate assholes are the reason we need to have quarantines in the first place.  You're a libertarian.  Live by your motto.  Your right to swing your arms ends where my nose begins.  Your infectious disease has a lot longer reach than your arm, yet you seem to want the right to swing away at other individuals with it. 

Also, we aren't talking about the flu.  We are talking about something with a high mortality rate.  Even though you're also an inconsiderate asshole for spreading the flu at your workplace and sending your kid to school with it. 

Edited by FondrenRoad
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, FondrenRoad said:

...  Also, we aren't talking about the flu.  We are talking about something with a high mortality rate.  ...

Actually, I started the thread with a philosophical intent.  It' not limited to any specific disease.  I'm musing on the line between individual liberty and the state.  I'd like folks deep thoughts on where the line is drawn.  How high of a mortality rate is the (your) threshold for ceding individual rights to the state?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, bernorange said:

You do realize that there is an ebola outbreak still happening in Africa that has killed over 2,200 people (https://www.who.int/csr/don/20-february-2020-ebola-drc/en/), right?  None of those people hopped on a plane.  They died relatively ignorant in a war zone.  From what I've read, many contracted the disease because of ignorance and adherence to religious or cultural rituals with respect to handling of the dead. 

You also didn't address the questions raised, but I suspect you are full Machiavelli on this issue.

 

Yes.  I am aware that ebola is still kicking around in Africa.  I guess I missed the part in your original post where you mentioned Africa. 

There's a happy medium somewhere between "Full state mandated lockdown every time someone has the common cold" and "Anarcho-capitalist paradise where your zerohedge thought leaders swoon and say 'At least the markets are operating unfettered!' as they bleed to death out of their eyes, ears, mouth and butthole from ebola."  If things get out of hand over here with coronavirus, which I do not think it will, I'd prefer that we exhaust measured steps to keep it at bay without restricting freedoms and go from there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, bernorange said:

Actually, I started the thread with a philosophical intent.  It' not limited to any specific disease.  I'm musing on the line between individual liberty and the state.  I'd like folks deep thoughts on where the line is drawn.  How high of a mortality rate is the (your) threshold for ceding individual rights to the state?

Well, the fact that quarantine is usually limited to days or weeks, the deprivation of liberty is minimal.  Although it's confining it isn't punitive. So it's somewhat less troubling than some deprivations.

Given that the consequences of failing to quarantine can be pretty widespread, I'd be willing to give government some larger leeway to implementing a quarantine short of certainty of disaster.

Back to law, the article states that CDC Director has quarantine authority and here are the statutes and regulations applicable. https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/specificlawsregulations.html

It appears that the quarantine authority has been pretty sparingly used, particularly in the last century or so.

And, of course, it's been abused to the detriment of certain ethnic groups.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, bernorange said:

Well, that's kind of the point of the thread.  One person's happy medium is another's "fuck no".  Where do you draw the line.  What's your criteria?

Can the disease causing/prompting the quarantine kill you.  Pretty much right there is where the line is. It's a pretty damn easy line to see coming.  Would you like to be known as Typhoid bernornge or maybe Ebola bernorgange ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, bernorange said:

Actually, I started the thread with a philosophical intent.  It' not limited to any specific disease.  I'm musing on the line between individual liberty and the state.  I'd like folks deep thoughts on where the line is drawn.  How high of a mortality rate is the (your) threshold for ceding individual rights to the state?

 

As far as the mortality rate goes for healthy individuals, I'd put it at about 20%. Wouldn't let you within 50 feet of my door if you were fleeing an outbreak zone.  At that point, the state should definitely be enforcing a quarantine. 

But even if it was 10% for healthy individuals, you should really just stay away from others, and if people aren't following self quarantine guidelines, then the state should step in as well. 

Really, you keep focusing on the individual liberty of the potentially infected person and not the individual liberty of the persons that potentially infected person is putting at risk. You aren't just walking around with a concealed weapon, you're walking around firing shots at people. Why do you believe you have the right to attack them?

And since you're asking philosophical questions, the same can be asked of you.  In your mind, how bad do you believe your potential disease needs to be before another individual would be within their rights to kill you in self defense? If I'm standing there with my grandma or newborn and you're running at me from a Wuhan coronavirus quarantined ship, are you over the threshold already?  If you run straight at me from an ebola tent?  At either point, the state keeping you separate and treating you is beneficial to all parties.  

Edited by FondrenRoad
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't this ultimately come down to no one has a right to put unconsenting people at risk of injury or death? Like drunk driving or firing a gun in public.

As far as thresholds, that is something usually advised by experts. For example, boner pills might be awesome but if it's been over 4 hours you might want to get your dick checked. The 4 hour threshold means a lot coming from a doctor but not your buddy Cletus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Onboard 2.0 said:

Can the disease causing/prompting the quarantine kill you.  Pretty much right there is where the line is. It's a pretty damn easy line to see coming. ...

You think that it a solid line that is easy to see, but it's not.  The common (influenza strain) flu can and does kill a lot of people, but it hasn't killed me yet.  Is a quarantine for citizens justified for the common (influenza strain) flu?  There are a lot of variables that folks like the CDC and WHO play with when analyzing communicative diseases like infection rate, mortality rate, etc.  Some demographics are more vulnerable than others.  Transmission methods vary.  There is always a chance (small or large is a relative thing) that a carrier ends up transmitting a disease to someone who's immune system isn't sufficient to cope.  A zero loss tolerance is akin to total tyranny.  So where is the line drawn?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

If the fucking CCP can't control thier own shit, what makes yall believe America will? 

Well, China is a massive ghetto with poor healthcare.  Yeah, they can easily imprison or murder big chunks of their population if they want.

While the US may not have great healthcare across the board, we can bring to bear the best healthcare in the world on a smaller, less dense population and with almost infinitely better facilities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, FondrenRoad said:

... Really, you keep focusing on the individual liberty of the potentially infected person and not the individual liberty of the persons that potentially infected person is putting at risk. You aren't just walking around with a concealed weapon, you're walking around firing shots at people. Why do you believe you have the right to attack them?

And since you're asking philosophical questions, the same can be asked of you.  In your mind, how bad do you believe your potential disease needs to be before another individual would be within their rights to kill you in self defense? If I'm standing there with my grandma or newborn and you're running at me from a Wuhan coronavirus quarantined ship, are you over the threshold already?  If you run straight at me from an ebola tent?  At either point, the state keeping you separate and treating you is beneficial to all parties.  

First question is interesting.  I posit two scenarios - one in which the actor is aware that s/he is carrying a communicable disease (ie. s/he is symptomatic and/or clinically diagnosed).  The question then becomes whether the act of normal daily life (going to the store to buy groceries or whatever) is equivalent to a an act of violence.  It's possible that such an act might infect someone.  It's possible that such an infection might cause harm.  In such cases, the injured party really has no cause for redress or ability to prove liability.

Second scenario - the actor is unaware that s/he is carrying a communicable disease (ie. actor is asymptomatic).  Without evidence, can the state trump the individual's rights to travel and free association?

~~

You are the first to ask me my own thoughts on the questions posed.  I'm not sure to be honest.  It's part of why I started the thread in the first place.  The interaction of debate (whether devil's advocate or otherwise) helps me figure that out.  But to the questions at hand, I'm struggling with the question of liability for the harm someone incurs from succumbing to a communicable disease.  If person A transmits "it" to person B (knowingly or unknowningly), and might either 1) not get sick, 2) get sick, but recover, 3) get sick, and die.  Is person A culpable for outcome 3?  Does the possibility of 3 justify state control in all cases, or if, only some cases (as I suspect most people would agree), where is the line drawn?  What criteria justifies the loss of individual liberty for "the common good"?

Just now, F250 said:

Doesn't this ultimately come down to no one has a right to put unconsenting people at risk of injury or death? Like drunk driving or firing a gun in public. ...

Assuming that the fact other people choose to drive on public roads isn't evidence of their consent to the risks of driving in public, you put unconsenting people at risk of injury or death every time you drive a public road.  Your car could malfunction (tire blowout, etc.).  You could have a health emergency (heart attack, seizure, etc.).  You could be distracted by a pretty girl or cell phone alert.  Shit happens.  Generally (though specifically not with blood-alcohol levels), with respect to the road, we consider folks innocent until proven guilty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, China is a massive ghetto with poor healthcare.  Yeah, they can easily imprison or murder big chunks of their population if they want.

While the US may not have great healthcare across the board, we can bring to bear the best healthcare in the world on a smaller, less dense population and with almost infinitely better facilities.

Yep, China was building hospitals overnight and Wuhan is poor.  It isn't Beijing.  It never had the infrastructure for even a minor outbreak.  Don't kid yourself though.  We'd have more than enough doctors descending upon a quarantined US city, but no US city has enough hospital beds for a major outbreak either. We'd have to build makeshift ones as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, bernorange said:

First question is interesting.  I posit two scenarios - one in which the actor is aware that s/he is carrying a communicable disease (ie. s/he is symptomatic and/or clinically diagnosed).  The question then becomes whether the act of normal daily life (going to the store to buy groceries or whatever) is equivalent to a an act of violence.  It's possible that such an act might infect someone.  It's possible that such an infection might cause harm.  In such cases, the injured party really has no cause for redress or ability to prove liability.

Second scenario - the actor is unaware that s/he is carrying a communicable disease (ie. actor is asymptomatic).  Without evidence, can the state trump the individual's rights to travel and free association?

~~

You are the first to ask me my own thoughts on the questions posed.  I'm not sure to be honest.  It's part of why I started the thread in the first place.  The interaction of debate (whether devil's advocate or otherwise) helps me figure that out.  But to the questions at hand, I'm struggling with the question of liability for the harm someone incurs from succumbing to a communicable disease.  If person A transmits "it" to person B (knowingly or unknowningly), and might either 1) not get sick, 2) get sick, but recover, 3) get sick, and die.  Is person A culpable for outcome 3?  Does the possibility of 3 justify state control in all cases, or if, only some cases (as I suspect most people would agree), where is the line drawn?  What criteria justifies the loss of individual liberty for "the common good"?

Assuming that the fact other people choose to drive on public roads isn't evidence of their consent to the risks of driving in public, you put unconsenting people at risk of injury or death every time you drive a public road.  Your car could malfunction (tire blowout, etc.).  You could have a health emergency (heart attack, seizure, etc.).  You could be distracted by a pretty girl or cell phone alert.  Shit happens.  Generally (though specifically not with blood-alcohol levels), with respect to the road, we consider folks innocent until proven guilty.

A drunk is not a reasonable actor. Yes, people assume a risk by driving with the understanding that other drivers are reasonable actors and are trained and licensed to drive a vehicle that has been inspected for basic safety controls (working blinkers, brakes, tires, etc...) The risk is accepted with an understanding that everyone is abiding by laws that are designed to reduce risk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Yep, China was building hospitals overnight and Wuhan is poor.  It isn't Beijing.  It never had the infrastructure for even a minor outbreak.  Don't kid yourself though.  We'd have more than enough doctors descending upon a quarantined US city, but no US city has enough hospital beds for a major outbreak either. We'd have to build makeshift ones as well. 

That doesn't scare me, more so the unethical treatment of people who knew about it, but we're silenced. The people welded inside thier homes. The people taken to containment camps who are their left to die. 

What would make a top down govt be more responsible here?  It's for "public safety" and so it's okay to sweep a few bodies under the rug if need be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the idea of protecting the many at the expense of the few underlies both quarantines and criminal penalties.

But the outcomes are at least somewhat different with the criminal penalty being generally of long duration and punitive conditions, while the quarantine should be only as long as necessary and non-punitive conditions.  Both constrain absolute freedom, but I think they're different in pretty meaningful ways.

The danger posed by the acts could be similar or different.  In a lot of cases a quarantined person is going to pose much more danger than the imprisoned person.

The difference of course is culpability.  The criminal is adjudged to be morally or at least societally culpable and to owe a punishment.

Quarantine occurs through no or usually negligible fault of the quarantined.  

I'm not sure criminal analogies are particularly helpful here.  But the "confinement" aspect makes them attractive analogies.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, bernorange said:

First question is interesting.  I posit two scenarios - one in which the actor is aware that s/he is carrying a communicable disease (ie. s/he is symptomatic and/or clinically diagnosed).  The question then becomes whether the act of normal daily life (going to the store to buy groceries or whatever) is equivalent to a an act of violence.  It's possible that such an act might infect someone.  It's possible that such an infection might cause harm.  In such cases, the injured party really has no cause for redress or ability to prove liability.

Second scenario - the actor is unaware that s/he is carrying a communicable disease (ie. actor is asymptomatic).  Without evidence, can the state trump the individual's rights to travel and free association?

~~

You are the first to ask me my own thoughts on the questions posed.  I'm not sure to be honest.  It's part of why I started the thread in the first place.  The interaction of debate (whether devil's advocate or otherwise) helps me figure that out.  But to the questions at hand, I'm struggling with the question of liability for the harm someone incurs from succumbing to a communicable disease.  If person A transmits "it" to person B (knowingly or unknowningly), and might either 1) not get sick, 2) get sick, but recover, 3) get sick, and die.  Is person A culpable for outcome 3?  Does the possibility of 3 justify state control in all cases, or if, only some cases (as I suspect most people would agree), where is the line drawn?  What criteria justifies the loss of individual liberty for "the common good"?

Assuming that the fact other people choose to drive on public roads isn't evidence of their consent to the risks of driving in public, you put unconsenting people at risk of injury or death every time you drive a public road.  Your car could malfunction (tire blowout, etc.).  You could have a health emergency (heart attack, seizure, etc.).  You could be distracted by a pretty girl or cell phone alert.  Shit happens.  Generally (though specifically not with blood-alcohol levels), with respect to the road, we consider folks innocent until proven guilty.

You keep coming back to minor illnesses.  I don't think the flu rises to the level of quarantine.

As far as awareness of your infection goes, I'd draw a line between knowing and unknowing. However, if you are fleeing a highly publicized outbreak zone, I would say you would have knowledge that you would be putting people at risk even if asymptomatic. You're pretty much Schrodinger's cat during the incubation period and you should respect the liberty of others and behave as if you are surely infected.  If you lie to a family that takes you in and their baby dies from it, are you responsible?  I'm sure you'd beat yourself up over it, but moral liability and legal liability are two different things. 

But I do think minor illness matters too.  I think you, and probably most people, undervalue the harm and potential harm caused by illness.  We don't seem to make the same mistake with other harms. 

How about this example. A person has the flu. He knows it and he feels it.  As the potential victim, would you rather be punched in the stomach once by a healthy person or have the flu infected person sneeze in your face?  Personally, I'd take the punch. Probably wouldnt even feel it the next day. The flu would make me feel like shit for one to two weeks. However, the puncher committed assault. Did the sneezer?  To me, he committed the more damaging act. Yet fuckers go to work with the flu all the time, sneeze on their hands and touch doorknobs, and harm others. And even if care is taken at work, the harm caused is still an intentional act. The considerate thing to do is to stay home until you're well. 

If the state of NY would allow it, every time a sick person came into the office knowingly sick, I would use their vacation days to cover every other subsequent person's sick days that came from that action. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

That doesn't scare me, more so the unethical treatment of people who knew about it, but we're silenced. The people welded inside thier homes. The people taken to containment camps who are their left to die. 

What would make a top down govt be more responsible here?  It's for "public safety" and so it's okay to sweep a few bodies under the rug if need be.

The same thing that has always kept our government accountable.  The free press would exist inside any US quarantine zone. If it doesn't, then assume the worst.  

I think the worst of Trump, and while he'd surely try to make most of his administration's actions a Fox only affair, even he would gladly let all outlets broadcast from a quarantine zone. 

The worst case scenario is government inaction while people die from an outbreak and also kill each other because they fear everyone is a carrier. That's what would happen in the libertarian dream world.  Even China's actions are better than that. The vast majority of sick people are getting care. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@bernorange ---apologies for a hit and run post, real life intervened and I forgot about it. It is certainly complicated. As a society, we already value some lives more than others and have decided that 'n' deaths per year per population are acceptable. So when a citizen increases that number is that where the line is drawn with a particular disease? How many deaths do we find acceptable and are certain populations considered expendable? I don't know.

I had highlighted the measles cases in NY because they illustrated both the government (local) response and the community response. Some saw the quarantines as too restrictive, others as not enough. Some thought it (the measles) was no big deal while others especially with vulnerable family members were angry. Measles is highly contagious, so once you are exposed you have a likelihood of transmission. Coronavirus appears to be similar in that regard. If a community has an outbreak then do its citizens have a responsibility to the community to self-segregate once exposed? I don't know. There is much about the virus still being discovered but maybe using measles as an example it can take the discussion further. Go back in time a ways prior to the vaccine (and if you wish antibiotics). Prior to those healthcare advantages, in 1912 the year measles was considered an identifiable disease and first tracked, measles killed about 6,000 people per year in the US (population of ~95 million) with around 3-4 million infected, mostly children. The development of antibiotics seems to have stemmed the fatalities a little and in the decade prior to the vaccine's introduction in 1963 around 400-500 deaths were reported (from the CDC website), 48,000 were hospitalized, and 1000 suffered encephalitis. With vaccine development due to the measles being a somewhat stable virus (if I understand the science correctly), measles' cases in the US plummeted and routine preventative care to prevent its resurgence is/was standard.

With antibiotics and access to healthcare, perhaps the coronavirus effects/secondary effects will be similar to the flu (minus the flu vaccine) but you've raised some questions with which I  am still struggling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

You keep coming back to minor illnesses.  I don't think the flu rises to the level of quarantine.(1)

... you would be putting people at risk (2)...

But I do think minor illness matters too.  I think you, and probably most people, undervalue the harm and potential harm caused by illness.  (3) ...

... As the potential victim, would you rather be punched in the stomach once by a healthy person or have the flu infected person sneeze in your face?  (4)...

(1) Why not?  I'm not trying to be a dick here.  I see this as the crux of the issue and would like to investigate it further.

(2) This is a separate issue that I'm struggling with.  How much liability does an individual have for transmitting an infectuous disease.  Let's assume a worst case scenario - the actor knows s/he is a carrier and contaminates an area where other people are likely to become infected.  How much liability does the actor have for the potential downstream consequences of someone else getting sick and/or dying?  Do people/society bear any responsibility for their own health / immune systems?  What percentage of probability is the threshold at which the potential for transmission equates to culpability?  I mean if the chances of infection from the contaminated site were 10%, I'd say the liability is non-existent.  If the chances were 90%, the liability seems pretty clearly akin to 100%.  Where is the line drawn though?

(3) I suspect it relates to the issue of liability (2).  It's not clearly established.

(4) A punch to the stomach is a physical act.  Physics governs the transfer of force to your soft tissues.  A certain amount of trauma is guaranteed.  Laws governing assault are clear from a moral and legal standpoint.  A sneeze into your face is less clear.  You aren't guaranteed to suffer any harm from it.  If you do suffer harm (get sick), who bears the responsibility for it?  The actor transmitting the flu, or you for having an immune system that couldn't handle it?  I see this as the gray area that isn't well defined.

 

8 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

...The worst case scenario is government inaction while people die from an outbreak and also kill each other because they fear everyone is a carrier. ...

spacer.png

27 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

...I had highlighted the measles cases in NY because they illustrated both the government (local) response and the community response. Some saw the quarantines as too restrictive, others as not enough. Some thought it (the measles) was no big deal while others especially with vulnerable family members were angry. ...

... you've raised some questions with which I  am still struggling.

Your measles example is an excellent one to illustrate the liability issue.  Most people (thanks to vaccinations) have exceedingly low probability of suffering harm from exposure.  Some people (either not vaccinated or immune compromised) are.  Where is the tipping point where society cedes the rights to travel and free association to government for the benefit of the vulnerable? 

Thanks for engaging.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...