No Right to Spread Diseases

[caroljane]

FRATERNAL ORDER OF THE SACRED IGLOO

Office of the Grand

RE: SECRET PLAN Strategy 9 Tactic 11

Alright, who was it? How does this Michael Stuart Kelly come to be implying knowledge which is absolutely TOP SECRET to all but core members and everybody else involved in implementation, which is everybody, so whoever it was better, (1) Shut your big trap in future and (2) find out if he wants a payoff,and remember we went overbudget on the Training Camp Opening Party.

Shape up, you know who you are. Those sultry southern climes are corrupting you. I know what Im talking about, I spent that winter in Ottawa with Claudine.

And I mean it!

Nanook

Plan Coordinator

[syrakusos]

About germs:

1. Germs are everywhere. ...

4. ... To be susceptible, the health of the host must be in some way impaired.

Jerry, I agree, generally, that the "germ theory of disease" is necessary but not sufficient. The Black Death only killed 25% to 33% of the people in Europe. Apparently two-thirds to three-quarters were healthy enough to resist, or to otherwise avoid getting bitten by the fleas. As noted, the Spanish flu epidemic of 1918 that killed over half a million in the USA only killed less that one-half of one percent of the population. As suggested here, also, just because Typhoid Mary Mallon made other people sick does not necessarily require that her rights be violated.

So maybe we should do nothing about disease except to haul out the dead.

By the way, just for the record, I can count on one hand the number of times in the last 20 years that I missed work because I was sick. It's been 20 years since I had a case of influenza. Over the course of my life, I might have missed a day or two every couple of three years, depending how and what, given that I was living in the midwest where cold, wet winters and springs are the norm. But I have always taken lots of vitamins, eaten right, and exercised. When I do feel sick, I am a big fan of vitamin C and chicken soup; and whatever common colds I get are typically short and mild.

Or maybe, the reasonable recommendations would be to recognize that in an age of HIV, STD, H1N1, mutagenic, anti-biotic resistant, genetically tailored organisms, bio-weapons, anthrax attacks, brain eating amoebas, ebola virus, and over half of humanity crammed into cities of 10 and 20 millions, that really, people who are sick should be quarantined because no one has a right to infect other people. Coming to work sick is the initiation of force.

No one here addressed the problem of Hepatitis A in the food service industry. If germs are everywhere and if people who are sick should just get over it, then, there would be no legal sanction for making people sick with poor sanitation in food service. Again, that stands as yet another reductio ad absurdum to the laissez faire theory of public health.

While it was claimed that coming to work sick with the flu is not the same thing as releasing a vial of H1N1 in a bus station, no standard was offered for differentiating the two actions. You might say that the terrorist who releases Spanish Flu has a motive to harm others, but how do you know that your infected co-worker does not?

It was said that an employer cannot inspect everyone's cavities. However, it is common sense that the common cold - any pathogenic disease, really - runs a course and the stage of communicability is observably obvious. For the employer not to act is to make the employer an accessory to the crime.

[Frediano]

About germs:

1. Germs are everywhere. ...

4. ... To be susceptible, the health of the host must be in some way impaired.

Jerry, I agree, generally, that the "germ theory of disease" is necessary but not sufficient. The Black Death only killed 25% to 33% of the people in Europe. Apparently two-thirds to three-quarters were healthy enough to resist, or to otherwise avoid getting bitten by the fleas. As noted, the Spanish flu epidemic of 1918 that killed over half a million in the USA only killed less that one-half of one percent of the population. As suggested here, also, just because Typhoid Mary Mallon made other people sick does not necessarily require that her rights be violated.

So maybe we should do nothing about disease except to haul out the dead.

By the way, just for the record, I can count on one hand the number of times in the last 20 years that I missed work because I was sick. It's been 20 years since I had a case of influenza. Over the course of my life, I might have missed a day or two every couple of three years, depending how and what, given that I was living in the midwest where cold, wet winters and springs are the norm. But I have always taken lots of vitamins, eaten right, and exercised. When I do feel sick, I am a big fan of vitamin C and chicken soup; and whatever common colds I get are typically short and mild.

Or maybe, the reasonable recommendations would be to recognize that in an age of HIV, STD, H1N1, mutagenic, anti-biotic resistant, genetically tailored organisms, bio-weapons, anthrax attacks, brain eating amoebas, ebola virus, and over half of humanity crammed into cities of 10 and 20 millions, that really, people who are sick should be quarantined because no one has a right to infect other people. Coming to work sick is the initiation of force.

No one here addressed the problem of Hepatitis A in the food service industry. If germs are everywhere and if people who are sick should just get over it, then, there would be no legal sanction for making people sick with poor sanitation in food service. Again, that stands as yet another reductio ad absurdum to the laissez faire theory of public health.

While it was claimed that coming to work sick with the flu is not the same thing as releasing a vial of H1N1 in a bus station, no standard was offered for differentiating the two actions. You might say that the terrorist who releases Spanish Flu has a motive to harm others, but how do you know that your infected co-worker does not?

It was said that an employer cannot inspect everyone's cavities. However, it is common sense that the common cold - any pathogenic disease, really - runs a course and the stage of communicability is observably obvious. For the employer not to act is to make the employer an accessory to the crime.

"For the employer not to act is to make the employer an accessory to the crime."

That such nonsense is entertained in this world, and is entertained widely, is exactly why I'm glad I acted the way I did 30 yrs ago. I take heart at all the idiot employees that I've never exposed to other idiot employees, and hope they find themselves in healthier environs as a consequence. I know I have..

[Selene]

Selene was surprised when I asserted that no one should come to work sick.

Really?

That was all I stated.

I was not "surprised."

Frankly, as this thread has developed, my astonishment is that your approach is insanely repressive in application to any business person.

A...

[moralist]

About germs:

1. Germs are everywhere. Even if you were on an island all by your lonesome, you would be exposed to germs.

2. Normal people are deadly to germs. If you are so fragile that you get seriously sick just because someone sneezes, you probably should stay home yourself and stay in bed until your health is better.

3. We need germs so our immune system can be exercised and stay strong.

4. Koch's postulates got changed. Now they say 'susceptible' host. Not all hosts are susceptible. To be susceptible, the health of the host must be in some way impaired.

Well put.

Failure to recognize the truth in the points you listed only encourages the tyranny of the "peanut allergy" minority.

Greg

[syrakusos]

Well put.

Failure to recognize the truth in the points you listed only encourages the tyranny of the "peanut allergy" minority.

Greg

As noted by someone else in a different discussion, some who claim to be libertarians are only central planners of a different stripe. The obvious truth is everyone has a different, individual physiology. Our science today is somewhat limited in such definitions, but we do recognize that some people are intolerant of lactose, others of gluten, and so on. No surprises should ensue. Each of us is an individual and we all have different genetic histories, though they can be statistically grouped.

Moreover, market responses are quick: some people make a lot of money serving such populations. If you are not in them - as I am not - well, fine, and good, but to denigrate them as unworthy of consideration is irrational tribalism.

So far, I have offered a logically consistent proposition based on first principles. Except for JTS, those who replied resorted to quips and jokes, lacking in empirical evidence or theoretical explanation. Ba'al's point about Typhoid Mary Mallon was ignored by all -- and for good reason: you have no answer. I have no answer, either. Were her rights violated? Should she be allowed to infect other people with typhoid fever? It takes some analysis, apparently. I just asked the question. All I did was raise the issue. And in return, I met the usual ignorance, superstition, resentment and hatred given by the mob to every new idea.

[PDS]

Must be hard to type with your hands nailed to the cross.

And what exactly is your "new" idea again? That people shouldn't sneeze on each other? Very, very bold. Got it.*

*I would say more but I am late for a mob meeting. Stopping for some Kleenex on the way.

[BaalChatzaf]

The microscopic biota on Earth outweigh the human race by several orders of magnitude.

[moralist]

Well put.

Failure to recognize the truth in the points you listed only encourages the tyranny of the "peanut allergy" minority.

Greg

As noted by someone else in a different discussion, some who claim to be libertarians are only central planners of a different stripe.

Your comment undoubtedly holds true for others, for I've never claimed to belong to the libertarian ideology.

...we do recognize that some people are intolerant...

Indeed.

Your statement has a much broader application than the context into which you set it. There is nothing quite so intolerant of the rights of the majority as a tyrannical minority.

Moreover, market responses are quick: some people make a lot of money serving such populations. If you are not in them - as I am not - well, fine, and good, but to denigrate them as unworthy of consideration is irrational tribalism.

I'm all for making money (although personally within ethical boundaries). But I have no problem with anyone who makes money by servicing the demands of the narcoculture, as their values match those of their clients. So each deserves the other as they do business with their own kind.

Ba'al's point about Typhoid Mary Mallon was ignored by all -- and for good reason: you have no answer. I have no answer, either. Were her rights violated? Should she be allowed to infect other people with typhoid fever?

My question is:

Should others be allowed to protect themselves from becoming infected?

In my own personal experience I learned that the best defense against a "germy" world is to accept the personal responsibility to maintain my own health. When I was overseas in the military, our company broke both records for the highest incidence of venereal disease and hepatitis. Inoculations were declared mandatory, but luckily I knew a guy in the Dispensary who completely filled in my shot record for the rest of my tour so that I never had to get another shot. As long as I wasn't behaving like almost everyone else, there was no reason for me to get sick... and I didn't.

Those who service the narcoculture would never want people to take on the personal responsibility for their own health, because there's no money in it for them. They would never want people to realize that the majority of their health issues could be traced to their own self inflicted behavior. That is totally unacceptable. The cultural belief that treating symptoms through pharmaceuticals is the only "cure" must be held up as the Holy Grail of healthcare. And it is... because 70% of the population who are on prescription drugs just couldn't be wrong, could they?

[Selene]

So far, I have offered a logically consistent proposition based on first principles.

This assertion has not been proven, or, agreed to by many of us here on OL.

Seems to be quite similar to question begging.

[dldelancey]

Actually, Michael, I neither joked nor quipped. I recall agreeing with you generally. I posed a serious question back to you regarding the practicalities of implementation. You haven't addressed that.

In regards to Hep A, I stated very clearly that I chose to have my child immunized, and based on some statistics in the area where I live, I'll probably choose to immunize myself as well as soon as I have my next physical. If there's an immunization available, it's every person's choice to avail themselves of it.

On a related note, I worked in IT for a large healthcare organization for 10 years. Even though I had very little patient contact, I was required to be tested for tuberculosis annually. In addition, when serious flu strains (H1N1, for instance) reared their ugly heads, immunization was a requirement and procedures were enacted to ensure, to the best of the organization's ability, that vulnerable patients were not exposed. During the H1N1 scare, I recall my son's school making the immunization a requirement for their teachers and staff. Point being, there is at least some evidence that organizations with vulnerable populations already take measures to lower this kind of risk. Without you having to tell them to.

Rather than my employer fostering a culture of being the health police, I would prefer my employer foster a culture that encourages me to take care of myself when I need to. How many people go to work sick because they are afraid of repercussions if they miss a day? How many people have the option of telecommuting when they're sick? I dare say that very few people actually WANT to go to the office sick. Ggiven a working environment that allows them to feel their jobs are not at risk when they take a sick day, they will probably gladly stay at home. And THAT is an achievable, practical goal for an employer.

[caroljane]

This is why teachers get such generous sick-day provisions, a focus of much vilification for the resentful - yet we all remember the Iron Teachers who never missed a day of school in 40 years.

[Brant Gaede]

Any public location filled with people, such as a workplace, carries the inherent risk of catching communicable ailments - just like using public transportation carries the inherent risk of somebody else bumping into you. Colds are a commplace part of life, and life can't come to a grinding halt for everyone who happens to catch one. If you're so physically frail that catching a cold risks your life, then either don't go out in public or take your own precautions, such as wearing a mask. Obviously there are some communicable diseases, such as tuberculosis, that require strict quarantine because they carry with them a severe risk of permant harm to most people. But everyday sicknesses do not fall into this category.

I have an acquaintance who found out last year he suffers from severe celiac disease, which means that he can't eat any gluten without suffering severe medical consequences. His response to the development has been to throw a temper tantrum or sulk every time there is a social gathering in which there is food containing gluten. We have suggested to him many times that he should simply bring his own food, but he feels this is unfair because he wants everyone else to sacrifice so his quality of life can be equal despite his disability. I don't feel this is a reasonable position.

Life can be a bitch and sometimes the bitch gets further bitchified by the bitched.

--Brant