There's risk in everything we do, including for other people. What amount of risk is acceptable is a subjective choice.
This is why masks and gathering limits are prudent.
There's a difference between reckless endangerment/homicide than an accident. Ridiculous false equivalency.
And yet, comparison of catching a virus to homicide by gun is not.
That was not intended as a comparison, but as an obvious example of where "my body, my choice" clearly does not apply to making a slight movement of your index finger.
OP pointed out that this is contradictory to the usual rhetoric on abortion.
Your response was that we make just such an exception for guns and drunk driving. The implication, therefore, is that this is of such an equivalent moral imperative, that the same reactions are justified here.
You may not want to be drawing the analogy, but if you aren't, there's no point in raising the subject at all.
I'm pointing out that it's not, just like drunk driving and moving your finger when it happens to be connected to a gun aren't "pro-choice" moments.
"My body, my choice" doesn't apply in the same fashion when other people's rights are also involved. (And, to head-off the "nuh-uh", pro-choicers tend to fall down on the "no" side of fetal personhood.)
It's nothing like either of those, let alone "just like" them.
Catching a virus is not, in any way, like pulling the trigger on gun or choosing to drink and drive. The former happens to you. The latter two require personal agency.
"Sure, just like drunk driving or twitching your trigger finger when someone just happens to be in front of the gun."
And I quoted you -- you make a comparison to homicide. Comparing catching a virus to homicide of any sort is...extreme.
If you're going to argue that gun homicide and drunk driving are examples that should also be followed here, you are making the analogy between catching a virus and those examples.
Poor example, as Firearms safety 101 would prevent this:
- always point weapon in safe direction
- finger off trigger until ready to fire
- know your target and what is behind it
- treat every weapon as if it were loaded.
- wash your hands
- wear a mask
- practice social distancing
- avoid extended periods indoors with non-household members
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-si...
...which isn't different than any other year.
Every year, the flu kills tens of thousands (in the US -- higher worldwide). Disproportionately children.
Every year, driving kills hundreds of thousands, even when you exclude the effects of alcohol.
Every year, people have sex without condoms, and pass on harmful -- possibly fatal -- viruses.
Every year, millions of people die from communicable disease of every sort, ranging from pneumonia to HIV.
This is the first time in my life that we've tried to apply transitive risk logic to justify curtailing of individual freedoms. Masks are one thing, but telling people that they can't have family gatherings because it might hurt you?
This seems wrong to me. You can use this logic to justify literally any curtailment of personal freedom.
Seems wrong to me, too. There exists no society (that I'm aware of) where the decisions of an individual don't have second or third order effects on other members of the society. We manage and deal with this risk every day of our lives. Sometimes it flat out sucks. However, you can't control for it without raising a lot of very, very uncomfortable questions about what personal choices get to be made, by whom, and under which conditions.
This boils down to how you see the world, I guess. Much like any of the usual contentious political topics, both 'camps' view the other side as morally reprehensible.
I'm not "free" to start cooking commercially out of my home kitchen without inspections and licensing. This impacts my ability to earn an income -- because otherwise I might make you sick.
It's public health risk mitigation. We do it all the time.
Not responsive to the argument. You might hurt me in any other year, too. We don't tell people to avoid their families at thanksgiving, stop going into the office, etc. "all the time". It's unique. This year.
The flu is about as dangerous to me as SARS-CoV2, for example. How many years of your life, so far, have you avoided seeing your family at holidays in order to protect me?
Cars are also more dangerous to me than SARS-CoV2. How many years of your life have you avoided automobiles, because you might kill me in an accident?
The logic is the same. You may feel as though there is a justification for telling people not to see their families at Thanksgiving, but that's your opinion. Other people have different opinions, and they're equally valid.
Every year I get the flu shot to protect me, you, and our shared healthcare.
I (like many people) am at ~zero risk of serious disease, so we're back to the same transitive logic: apparently my catching a virus is morally equivalent to overloading the healthcare system, because I might give it to someone who is at risk. Well, likewise: you risk putting someone else in the hospital by catching the flu. Has it stopped you from living before?
And of course, there is a matter of degree: getting a seasonal shot is one thing; demanding that people avoid seeing their families is entirely another.
Finally, consider that every young, healthy person who gets this virus is afterward immune, and contributes to overall population immunity. Therefore, getting the virus and recovering from it is a positive outcome for society. This is offset by some small risk of transmission, of course, but that's a manageable risk. After all, masks and social distancing work, right?
funny how critical examination of that premise is not allowed.
Merely questioning it without a plausible explanation that is consistent with the existing data is a distraction. Why should anyone listen to you if that's all you've got?
Interesting that you should say that. The Danish RCT for masks as PPE was just published this week, and showed no statistical effect of masks on protection against SARS-CoV2:
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817
Despite this study being high quality, the only randomized controlled trial of masks and SARS-CoV2, and of pressing public interest, it was rejected by no fewer than three major scientific journals before publication. That's...unusual, to say the least:
https://www.berlingske.dk/videnskab/professor-stort-dansk-ma...
As a scientist, it has been dismaying to me how willing the scientific community has been to engage in censorship of unpopular opinions in 2020. Even the highest quality evidence is being actively suppressed, if it doesn't fit the "consensus viewpoint".
"And extraordinary claims that contradict both the data and common sense require extraordinary evidence."
In the case of medical interventions, the historical convention is that you do nothing if you cannot prove effectiveness. Said differently: claiming that an intervention works is an extraordinary claim. Assuming that it does not work is, quite literally, the null hypothesis.
> Limitations: ... no assessment of whether masks could decrease disease transmission from mask wearers to others.
This has always been the main motivation for mask wearing, but the study you cite didn't attempt to answer it.