undefined | Better HN

0 pointsfighterpilot4y ago0 comments

You are right that there's a big distinction there. But at the same time, I was attempting to point out that it's not only certainty of outcome where the NAP applies. We all accept that the NAP can validly apply in some situations where an aggression is probabilistic rather than guaranteed.

Let me outline an alternative situation where an individual would have no freedom of choice, but where you might agree with the measures imposed. Suppose we identify the first case of Ebola in the US next year. Do you support forcibly quarantining that person? Such an action is eminently necessary in my opinion. But at the same time, such an action violates the two things you've laid out: (1) it doesn't allow the individual any freedom of choice, (2) it is not guaranteed that they'll spread it and is therefore restricting their freedoms merely on the probability of aggression.

0 comments

kcplate4y ago

But—they have Ebola. The problem with a mandate of an imperfect vaccine on a person presently without Covid is they don’t have Covid. Frankly, I’d be ok quarantines imposed on Covid patients just like your Ebola scenario.

My problem is the whole “Minority Report pre-crimesque” aspect of it all. It’s an unnecessary aggression imposed on an individual to maybe or maybe not prevent a something that maybe or maybe not would have happened anyway.

A vaccine that was 100% effective and was 100% safe is probably the only way you can make an argument work. But if it was a 100% effective and a 100% it’s likely you wouldn’t need to mandate it anyway.

fighterpilotOP4y ago

That appears to be a distinction without a difference. Even though they already have Ebola, they may not infect someone else.

P(infect another) = P(get the disease)*P(transmit after getting it)

With the Ebola example, that's P_Ebola = 1.0*P(transmit after getting it).

With the COVID example, that's P_COVID = 0.3*P(transmit after getting it).

Both of these are sub-1 and not guaranteed to happen. In fact, P_COVID may actually be larger than P_Ebola depending on the relative R0 and assumptions we plug into the above calculations. So I don't see why the distinction you raised has relevance.

Detaining someone with Ebola, which we both agree is a good idea, is also a pre-crime measure, because they haven't infected anyone yet and they may never have infected anyone even without detention.

And I will also point out once more (due to your second sentence) that I do not support forced vaccinations for COVID. The COVID disease just isn't deadly enough and the vaccines aren't effective enough at preventing transmission for me to support that. I am merely saying I do support it in the abstract if a sufficiently deadly contagious disease comes about in the future.

kcplate4y ago

One is a known effective reaction to a danger. The other is an ineffective proaction to a possible danger. If you are going to violate someone’s liberty, you better have a damn good reason to do it.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsfighterpilot4y ago0 comments

0 comments

kcplate4y ago

fighterpilotOP4y ago

That appears to be a distinction without a difference. Even though they already have Ebola, they may not infect someone else.

P(infect another) = P(get the disease)*P(transmit after getting it)

With the Ebola example, that's P_Ebola = 1.0*P(transmit after getting it).

With the COVID example, that's P_COVID = 0.3*P(transmit after getting it).

kcplate4y ago

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse