undefined | Better HN

0 pointsthrowawaythekey4y ago0 comments

> if hypothetically, say, the virus had selective lethality

It might depend on how selective the lethality is! If a small population is vulnerable then I don't have a problem with them protecting themself to the best of their own abilities (no mandates). This is fairly common already with the immunocompromised etc.

If a large portion of the population is vulnerable then it becomes more grey. I'm pretty uncomfortable with there being a large amount of preventable suffering but intellectually my brain wants to take a long term view. The best possible society in the future seems like one where humans have stronger immune systems and take fewer vaccinations, not more. Is this something we can evolve towards? Is my poor knowledge of biology leading me astray? Who knows!

Given I know nothing I'm happy to fall back onto the distributed decision making apparatus (individual choice).

0 comments

jbay8084y ago

Fair enough, if that's your view!

For me, this hypothetical is more a situation where we're talking about one's freedom to make choices that endanger those around them, in addition themselves. When the principal danger is to oneself I think restrictions are rarely justified, but when the consequences are borne by others, I think it's more justified. For example, when operating cars, we don't allow you to drink and drive, run red lights, or drive on the sidewalk, primarily because it creates at least as much risk for your neighbours as it does for yourself.

throwawaythekeyOP4y ago

> When the principal danger is to oneself I think restrictions are rarely justified, but when the consequences are borne by others, I think it's more justified.

I think this point makes broad sense but needs refinement. For example if we assume there is a vaccine available that:

- Reduces personal injury - Does not prevent transmission

Using the above logic would mean that after taking the vaccine restrictions are more justified because the burden of the disease has shifted. I don't think that's what you intended and probably means that there still needs to be reference to absolute harm and taking reasonable minimization measures.

jbay8084y ago

I guess I meant that the restrictions are justified based on the harm prevention to your neighbours, rather than to yourself (I didn't mean to imply that it's based on some ratio).

In that sense, if a vaccine purely reduced transmission even without offering any other protection, mandating it could still be justified for certain activities, just like a driver's license is considered reasonable today.

I'm sure driver's licenses were considered very controversial restrictions on personal freedom back when they were first introduced.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsthrowawaythekey4y ago0 comments

> if hypothetically, say, the virus had selective lethality

Given I know nothing I'm happy to fall back onto the distributed decision making apparatus (individual choice).

0 comments

jbay8084y ago

Fair enough, if that's your view!

throwawaythekeyOP4y ago

> When the principal danger is to oneself I think restrictions are rarely justified, but when the consequences are borne by others, I think it's more justified.

I think this point makes broad sense but needs refinement. For example if we assume there is a vaccine available that:

- Reduces personal injury - Does not prevent transmission

jbay8084y ago

I guess I meant that the restrictions are justified based on the harm prevention to your neighbours, rather than to yourself (I didn't mean to imply that it's based on some ratio).

I'm sure driver's licenses were considered very controversial restrictions on personal freedom back when they were first introduced.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse