💀
@nerdman @Terry
I think I'll disagree with you on this one. I think that if you know you have a serious infectious disease, it's your responsibility to distance yourself from other people that might get infected from you. Of course these things depend from disease to disease, for instance you don't actually need to quarantine someone with HIV, since it spreads only in very specific circumstances, but they still need to avoid performing certain sexual acts.
Now our main disagreement is probably gonna be if covid is serious enough to where this need to apply. And honestly, I think even in the case of a flu people should try to distance themselves from others to some degree. So for me, yes covid is serious enough to where an infected should stay home for those 2 weeks, or however long it's required over there.
@nerdman @Terry
Being sick is not a crime, true. But willfully endangering the life of others is. And some diseases do fall into that category of being serious enough that if you know you're exposing someone else to it without their consent, it's considered that you're doing it on purpose to hurt them.
Again, we will probably disagree on whether covid should be considered such a serious disease.
That's the thing. To protect the majority I have to sacrifice my right to protest. Maybe tomorrow autism is found to be contagious by government and suddenly me or my kids get to stay in home for life?
(Going hyperbole for contrast.)
Nah. On this, I go hardline, I'm sorry.
People fearing for their lives due to infectious diseases should move to the country and live in a farm, far away from human contact.
(And the then you walk past a duck with some other form of covid and you die from that, lol.)
@nerdman @Terry
>People fearing for their lives due to infectious diseases should move
And here we encounter the reverse of your problem. Now you're expecting them to sacrifice their freedom to make you happy. And I'm guessing there are gonna be more of them than you, so we're dealing with limiting the rights of a bunch of people for a minority. Sure, it's not ok to violate the rights of a minority either, but here's the final nail imo: your right to protest would be suspended for a few weeks until you heal. They would have to have their rights limited for potentially their entire lives.
As it's often said, your right to swing your fist around ends where my nose begins. When your right to protest reaches my rights, society decides to put a limit on the "smaller" right that infringes either more rights, more important rights, or the rights of more people. In our very particular case, we're talking about a time limited infringement of your right to protest vs a potential to infringe the right to life (which is pretty much permanent). And I don't know about you, but I think the right to life is the more important one. It's not like you would be able to protest without being alive in the first place.
Actually I think that if you have ebola and want to go protest, you should be able to. Sickness is not a crime.
I would STRONGLY RECOMMEND you don't, but I'm kind of a freedom extremist.
Not a popular position but it is what it is.