A good amount of countries have already banned plastic bags without such issue. If this outbreak was really rrlated to plastic bag ban, there must be another factor that must be much more relevant than the plastic bags themselves. Just look at the list of countries that already banned those: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-out_of_lightweight_pla...

I wonder what that other factor could be?

Maybe people living in abject conditions in the street and defecating in the open? Just a hunch.

Obviously homelessness is the core issue, but unfortunately most countries let people live in those conditions. Nonetheless, there was no outbreaks like the one mentioned in the article in other places banning plastic bags. So assuming that there will be the same sad consequences in New York is just wrong. It would be great that nobody had to leave in street, but in the current situation there must be something specific in San Diego that caused the outbreak, and it's obviously not just banning plastic bags.

This is anecdotal, but having lived on both coasts, public defecation is not nearly as prevalent on the East Coast.

New York doesn't have a public bathroom system per se, but government offices like libraries are extremely prevalent, and those will have public bathrooms. Some stores also have bathrooms that are more or less open to the public.

US cities in my experience have very few public toilets. The only exceptions I can think of are the ones in parks & beaches.

If society has to rely on "defecating in a plastic bag and tossing it in the trash" for its health safety - it has much bigger problems than banning plastic bags imho.

Sure. But playing the devil's advocate. If that's the case then society had a working solution with plastic bags.

I don't understand how anyone could think that forcing the homeless to sh*t in plastic bags and disposing of them safely is any kind of solution to a hepatitis outbreak?

The root cause was mentioned in the linked article:

"At the same time, the city was locking and removing bathrooms to help control the rampant drug and prostitution trade they’d spawned"

As was a more humane solution:

"Today, the tents are gone. There are clusters of newly installed portable toilets open and guarded 24 hours a day. More than 60 new hand-washing stations dot the city."

A solution to a symptom, certainly... But not the disease.

If removing plastic causes this sort of thing, then something critical has been ignored. It's probably best if the society faces that problem and deals with it.

If locks are needed to protect property and safety, something critical has been ignored. It's probably best if society faces that problem and deals with it.

If formal schooling is needed to educate children, something critical has been ignored. It's probably best if society faces that problem and deals with it.

If medication is needed to keep people healthy, something critical has been ignored. It's probably best if society faces that problem and deals with it.

There are no silver bullets, only bullets. Ignore them at your peril.

Having worse sanitation than the Roman Empire is not comparable to the inevitable breakdown of human form that comes with age.

Platitudes are cheap.

Examine a statement to see if it's logic bears out before saying that it's impossible to approach safely.

Formal education is helpful in treating the root cause of the problem it's addressing, that of knowledge and skill.

Complaining disposable plastic bags are necessary for sanitation because of a large homeless society doesn't treat the root: Why are so many people homeless? (And yes, that problem is difficult and requires a multi-faceted approach... But plastic bags to pick up human shit isn't the solution.)

a) Taxing workers to give non-workers free homes in premium markets violates most voters' intuitions about fairness.

b) Restricting internal migration or treating people from certain places preferentially also violates most voters' intuitions about fairness.

If American democracy is to end homelessness, anyone must be able to move to New York/San Francisco and immediately obtain a home there that neither they nor anyone else pays for.

Holding out for this doesn't seem like a good plan.

Ok, now we can bring even more visibility to the terrifying issue that people apparently are forced to shit in plastic bags.

New York has much stricter laws around getting homeless into shelters than California does.

California could clearly benefit from this. Housing here is treated as a luxury rather than a right. There are plenty on the streets that should arguably be in institutional care.

NY is the same, just you'll get moved on if you try to set up camp on the street.

No, New York mandates that everyone who wants a bed in a shelter gets one. The City does a lot to try to get people into shelters, unfortunately, some people would rather be on the street than in a shelter (some due to mental health issues, some due to concerns about safety in shelters).

Any tent or cardboard makeshift sleeping spot will get destroyed if reported. This isn't SF.

It's regrettable that there are people living on the streets, but whose housing in particular do they have a right to? Or to whose labor to provide them with housing? Is it more just to provide them with housing by coercion, or to make laws and regulations in such a way as to encourage and reward charitable activity? Or is there another way that doesn't require an implicit gun at the givers' heads?

Natural resources are fenced off by society, to great profit of the wealthy class. It's not unreasonable to ask society to provide the bare necessities for the least fortunate.

Society doesn't have to be a raw libertarian "paradise" - it's acceptable to say "we should all, together, help house the homeless (with our tax money).

Banning childbirth or immigration if a fully owned home is not owned by the new person.

> owned by the new person

You think that unborn children should be required to legally own property before they are allowed to be delivered?

I've heard of "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" but this is a new level of absurdity.

Yeah, as in parents should commit to donating them a home pre-birth, along with insurance on it and they should not be allowed to sell unless they own another home

Then no one will ever be homeless.

That's the only non-state solution that guarantees this outcome (well, barring major catastrophes that destroy the home and cause the insurance to not be effective at replacing it).

The climate will do that.

Is America even a first-world nation?

"Sorry, we can't get rid of plastic problem because that's actually how we address our public sanitation and homelessness problems."

This seems like a problem to be solved by increasing access to public restrooms.

Counterpoint: increasing access to public restrooms results in unuseable public restrooms. As someone who (a) likes to 'hike' in-city but (b) has a small bladder, I rely on public restrooms on city trails, and in my admittedly small experience (Fort Worth and San José) they don't just become disgusting, but actively get vandalised within a very short time, after which repairs understandably take a very long time.

Somehow the ones in Ann Arbor and Chicago don't seem to get such harsh treatment. I'm not sure why; maybe those cities just budget a lot more for maintenance.

"Some ... speculate ... might have been..." I'd need a lot more convincing to say something as bold as "prepare for a hepatitis outbreak."

This is a great example of intended consequences of making laws. Thanks for sharing never would have thought of that

You mean unintended?

NYC at least has tons of public bathrooms that are currently closed but could easily be reopened again.

Why are they closed?

Because they're a maintenance nightmare.

Wow, I didn’t realize that was an option.

Are people really asking themselves “what am I supposed to shit in now?”