No Right to Spread Diseases

[syrakusos]

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

No kidding. How is coming into work with a cold not like coming into work with a loaded gun? In fact, the gun is safer. I have had heart surgery. Why should I be in danger of an endocarditis infection? And what is a "cold?" The Spanish flu of 1918 killed over half a million Americans in less than a year. You can get a flu shot, but (1) why should you have to? and (2) they are for last year's problem, not the unpredictable one. And how do we know that your symptoms are just a "head cold" and not some incurable STD?

I am pretty clear on this.

As I pointed out, Ayn Rand believed that no employer has a right to offer unsafe working conditions because you do not have a right to endanger other people. Think about that... It is why drunk driving is illegal. Ideally perhaps, the only crime would be actual damage to another person or their property. But we have a long sad history with this and we just all decided that being drunk while driving a car is dangerous to other people. Period.

No one has a right to spread communicable diseases.

[Selene]

No one has a right to spread communicable diseases.

Wouldn't you have the option of wearing a hazmat suit into work if you were that susceptiable to diseases?

[syrakusos]

CNN) -- A mass shooting at a Chicago park left a 3-year-old boy in critical condition and returned the spotlight to gun violence in the city with the nation's highest number of homicides.

So, it was the kid's own fault for not wearing kevlar? "Hey, if you are susceptible to bullets, suit up."

[Selene]

CNN) -- A mass shooting at a Chicago park left a 3-year-old boy in critical condition and returned the spotlight to gun violence in the city with the nation's highest number of homicides.

So, it was the kid's fault for not wearing kevlar?

Michael:

I do not accept your comparison of the "common cold" and a machine gun as a logical comparison.

Let's see if there is another comparison that you would like to offer as a foundational argument.

A...

[dldelancey]

Generally, I agree. If you're sick, stay home. However, I don't see how this can be practically enforced, and especially not without violating individual rights. Do you propose to require employers to perform every possible test for every possible communicable ailment for every employee every day? Would it not be less onerous for the employer to simply not employ you instead?

[caroljane]

Deanna, forgive the personal question but did you allow your son to be vaccinatedÉ

[dldelancey]

Deanna, forgive the personal question but did you allow your son to be vaccinatedÉ

Yes, he is all up to date on his immunizations. During his first year, I did it because I had been immunized as a child, and it was "just standard practice." Then I realized there was some controversy, so I did the research and concluded the benefits far outweigh the risks. Also, his school requires it, and since it is a private school to which I pay tuition, I feel it is part of our mutually agreed upon contract for him to attend the school.

I recently also chose for him to be immunized against Hepatitis A, which is optional. I had a more difficult time with this one because he's 9, so he has a very clear and vocal opinion about having needles stuck in him. It was definitely a situation that required coercion against him which I am less and less comfortable with as he gets older.

[caroljane]

My sympathies, my first boy was so averse that he consistently fainted at his kindergarten shots, and had to be accompanied by his dad at boosters.

[BaalChatzaf]

No one has a right to spread communicable diseases.

Wouldn't you have the option of wearing a hazmat suit into work if you were that susceptiable to diseases?

Being that vulnerable to disease is abnormal. The burden of protection is on the one who is vulnerable.

Worse comes to worse, bubble boy can live in his bubble. The other folks might be kind enough and sympathetic enough to help bubble boy's family with the expense.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[syrakusos]

A quarantine public health officer interviews an ill traveler on board an international arriving aircraft (link to CDC).

Is anyone here claiming that the government has no mandate to protect the innocent by stopping carriers?

Is anyone here claiming that you have no obligation to remain isolated while contagious?

[moralist]

Is anyone here claiming that the government has no mandate to protect the innocent by stopping carriers?

My opinion is that in the vast majority of situations it does not.

But since the minority opinion of just one American has absolutely no power to prevent the government from being the grotesquely ugly fat bloated creation of fools who have abdicated personal responsibility for their own lives...

...my response is to be personally responsible for my own health... just as if no one else was.

[BaalChatzaf]

Is anyone here claiming that the government has no mandate to protect the innocent by stopping carriers?

My opinion is that in the vast majority of situations it does not.

But since the minority opinion of just one American has absolutely no power to prevent the government from being the grotesquely ugly fat bloated creation of fools who have abdicated personal responsibility for their own lives...

...my response is to be personally responsible for my own health... just as if no one else was.

I disagree. One of the broad mandates of government is maintaining public safety and order. Good folks need a quiet world to be good in.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Robert Baratheon]

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.

[PDS]

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.

Your acquaintence is not taking a reasonable position.

I eat a generally low-carb diet. Just this morning, at my firm's Breakfast Club event, the offerings were a massive carb-fest of potatoes, casseroles, etc., so I had a couple of choices. One, don't eat. Two, eat and grin and bear it. Or three, be one of those weenies who rains other people's parades. No dark night of the soul was called for at all....

[moralist]

Good folks need a quiet world to be good in.

It's just the opposite. Only good folks can make the world good...

...not a bloated government bureaucracy chock full of useless nonproductive parasites.

[BaalChatzaf]

Good folks need a quiet world to be good in.

It's just the opposite. Only good folks can make the world good...

...not a bloated government bureaucracy chock full of useless nonproductive parasites.

That is why we have cops and soldiers, to deal with the Bad Guys

[moralist]

Good folks need a quiet world to be good in.

It's just the opposite. Only good folks can make the world good...

...not a bloated government bureaucracy chock full of useless nonproductive parasites.

That is why we have cops and soldiers, to deal with the Bad Guys

I agree... because I was one of them.

Military and law enforcement are two of the very few legitimate functions of government.

Greg

[syrakusos]

This is just an extension of a known and appropriate response to contagion. From cholera, typhoid, and smallpox, it just needs to be extended to influenza and other "common" ailments. You have no right to infect other people.

The word quarantine comes from the Italian for 40: the number of days that a ship must lie at anchor before its crew is allowed on land. Some cities maintained islands for this.

"Typhoid Mary" Mallon was herself not sick. She was only a carrier. She spent 30 years of her life locked up to keep her away from other people.

We were fans of the NUMB3RS show and have the first three seasons on disk. In one episode, to boost business for his biotechnology lab, a scientist released Spanish flu. The H1N1 virus of 1918 was seen again in 2009. (Wikipedia here.) In the USA in 1918 over half a million died. But as it seems to be the consensus here, that being a small number - less than one half of one percent - of the population, this was not a serious problem. (Globally only 5% of the population died.) So, in the common opinion here, a person with H1N1 today should be perfectly free to socialize, to work in a restaurant or hospital or school. That is nonsense.

Being a disease carrier should bring the same constraints as driving while intoxicated or impaired. And, moreover, it seems according to the statements of Selene, Ba'al, Baratheon, PDS, and Moralist, that to purposefully release H1N1 virus in a bus station (as in the NUMB3RS episode) should not be a crime because only a small number of "bubble boys" are at risk. Again, I find that illogical.

Here at the University of Texas, one of the professors who launched a business came to speak. He said that typically, you feel sick, you goto the doctor. you get a treatment. However, you were sick before you noticed the symptoms. He proposes a set of broad screens for many diseases at once before symptoms appear. I believe that this is on the horizon and by the middle of the century will be as common for employment - or perhaps even entering a restaurant as a patron - as a drug screen today.

Moreover, if you have never had any kind of surgery, then you are a minority. Hidden infections in scar tissue is a known risk with serious consequences, as the site of the problem is not apparent and only external symptoms will alert you. From the Centers for Disease Control here.

• Total number of procedures performed: 51.4 million
• Number of selected procedures performed:
  • Arteriography and angiocardiography using contrast material: 2.4 million
  • Cardiac catheterizations: 1.0 million
  • Endoscopy of small intestine with or without biopsy: 1.1 million
  • Endoscopy of large intestine with or without biopsy: 499,000
  • Diagnostic ultrasound: 1.1 million
  • Balloon angioplasty of coronary artery or coronary atherectomy: 500,000
  • Hysterectomy: 498,000
  • Cesarean section:1.3 million
  • Reduction of fracture: 671,000
  • Insertion of coronary artery stent: 454,000
  • Coronary artery bypass graft: 395,000
  • Total knee replacement: 719,000
  • Total hip replacement: 332,000

It is true that government has limited powers. However, among those are a duty to protect the innocent. These same arguments run through GHS's discussion on the rights of children. The hardcore libertarian viewpoint is that if the police see a child surrounded by a pack of coyotes, they are under no duty to act. We have a current news story about a flooded town in Colorado. Again, since a flood is not a volitional creature it cannot violate anyone's rights, and so, according to libertarian legal theory, the protection services are under no duty to act. To me, that is the reductio ad absurdum of libertarian legal theory.

Here, too, are the claims of laissez faire simply not valid.

Cognizant of the difference between a citation of authority and an appeal to authority, I point to the fact that Ayn Rand asserted that no one has a right to endanger other people. I mention it because she has a well-earned reputation as an advocate for individual rights and limited government. However, she might have been wrong in that: maybe you do have that right and other people are required to protect themselves from you.

[PDS]

This is just an extension of a known and appropriate response to contagion. From cholera, typhoid, and smallpox, it just needs to be extended to influenza and other "common" ailments. You have no right to infect other people.

The word quarantine comes from the Italian for 40: the number of days that a ship must lie at anchor before its crew is allowed on land. Some cities maintained islands for this.

"Typhoid Mary" Mallon was herself not sick. She was only a carrier. She spent 30 years of her life locked up to keep her away from other people.

We were fans of the NUMB3RS show and have the first three seasons on disk. In one episode, to boost business for his biotechnology lab, a scientist released Spanish flu. The H1N1 virus of 1918 was seen again in 2009. (Wikipedia here.) In the USA in 1918 over half a million died. But as it seems to be the consensus here, that being a small number - less than one half of one percent - of the population, this was not a serious problem. (Globally only 5% of the population died.) So, in the common opinion here, a person with H1N1 today should be perfectly free to socialize, to work in a restaurant or hospital or school. That is nonsense.

Being a disease carrier should bring the same constraints as driving while intoxicated or impaired. And, moreover, it seems according to the statements of Selene, Ba'al, Baratheon, PDS, and Moralist, that to purposefully release H1N1 virus in a bus station (as in the NUMB3RS episode) should not be a crime because only a small number of "bubble boys" are at risk. Again, I find that illogical.

Here at the University of Texas, one of the professors who launched a business came to speak. He said that typically, you feel sick, you goto the doctor. you get a treatment. However, you were sick before you noticed the symptoms. He proposes a set of broad screens for many diseases at once before symptoms appear. I believe that this is on the horizon and by the middle of the century will be as common for employment - or perhaps even entering a restaurant as a patron - as a drug screen today.

Moreover, if you have never had any kind of surgery, then you are a minority. Hidden infections in scar tissue is a known risk with serious consequences, as the site of the problem is not apparent and only external symptoms will alert you. From the Centers for Disease Control here.

• Total number of procedures performed: 51.4 million
• Number of selected procedures performed:
  • Arteriography and angiocardiography using contrast material: 2.4 million
  • Cardiac catheterizations: 1.0 million
  • Endoscopy of small intestine with or without biopsy: 1.1 million
  • Endoscopy of large intestine with or without biopsy: 499,000
  • Diagnostic ultrasound: 1.1 million
  • Balloon angioplasty of coronary artery or coronary atherectomy: 500,000
  • Hysterectomy: 498,000
  • Cesarean section:1.3 million
  • Reduction of fracture: 671,000
  • Insertion of coronary artery stent: 454,000
  • Coronary artery bypass graft: 395,000
  • Total knee replacement: 719,000
  • Total hip replacement: 332,000

It is true that government has limited powers. However, among those are a duty to protect the innocent. These same arguments run through GHS's discussion on the rights of children. The hardcore libertarian viewpoint is that if the police see a child surrounded by a pack of coyotes, they are under no duty to act. We have a current news story about a flooded town in Colorado. Again, since a flood is not a volitional creature it cannot violate anyone's rights, and so, according to libertarian legal theory, the protection services are under no duty to act. To me, that is the reductio ad absurdum of libertarian legal theory.

Here, too, are the claims of laissez faire simply not valid.

Cognizant of the difference between a citation of authority and an appeal to authority, I point to the fact that Ayn Rand asserted that no one has a right to endanger other people. I mention it because she has a well-earned reputation as an advocate for individual rights and limited government. However, she might have been wrong in that: maybe you do have that right and other people are required to protect themselves from you.

I am afraid you are creating a slippery slope, greased with remnants of sneezes, blown noses and who knows what else.

Seriously, where would this theory end? I employ 20 people. Some of them happily working in their offices are probably sick, and they don't even know it. How am I supposed to know it? What if they just think they are sick because they hit the pub too hard last night. Who will do their work today when I send them home? Literally, how am I supposed to know who is sick? Which cavities should be searched as they come through my firm's doors in the morning?

I am being light-hearted here, but I hope you can see the point. Taken at face value, you seem to be suggesting a de facto police-state apparatus of some kind used by private employers to keep coworkers from catching a cold from one another. Most employers have enough shit to worry about without adding that to the mix. Moreover, I really don't think Rand considered sneezing to be the equivalent of the initiation of force. That seems to be a stretch.

I get the sense that you may be one of those people who opens the outgoing bathroom door with a tissue in your hand to avoid germs. Even if you're not, wouldn't your theory also require the locking of public restrooms?

[Robert Baratheon]

Michael - You are glossing over a key distinction in your analysis. It should be (and is) illegal, or at least civilly actionable, to take extraordinary steps to intentionally infect others with colds, diseases, or any other ailments. However, that is not what we're discussing here. Showing up at work with a cold does not qualify as intentionally infecting others. In fact, that is almost never the intention of the individual. It places others at risk, yes, but some level of risk is inherent in all of life's actions, and in this hypothetical, the risk of lasting harm is relatively small and there are legitimate competing interests to consider. This is why inherently dangerous diseases need to be quarantined while society tolerates the small risks and inconveniences of the everyday variety common colds. If placing others at any level of risk were illegal, nobody would be able to drive cars, there would be no oil companies, nobody could own a swimming pool, peanuts would be banned, and no electric lights on Christmas trees.

[PDS]

Michael - You are glossing over a key distinction in your analysis. It should be (and is) illegal, or at least civilly actionable, to take extraordinary steps to intentionally infect others with colds, diseases, or any other ailments. However, that is not what we're discussing here. Showing up at work with a cold does not qualify as intentionally infecting others. In fact, that is almost never the intention of the individual. It places others at risk, yes, but some level of risk is inherent in all of life's actions, and in this hypothetical, the risk of lasting harm is relatively small and there are legitimate competing interests to consider. This is why inherently dangerous diseases need to be quarantined while society tolerates the small risks and inconveniences of the everyday variety common colds. If placing others at any level of risk were illegal, nobody would be able to drive cars, there would be no oil companies, nobody could own a swimming pool, peanuts would be banned, and no electric lights on Christmas trees.

No tinsel either. Which, now that I think of it, would cut down on my cat's hairballs each Yuletide season...

[Samson Corwell]

I don't particularly like the implications of this.

[BaalChatzaf]

Let us get to the nub of the question. How many think the way Typhoid Mary was treated was correct? Speak up now!

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Is stupidity a communicable disease?

Like with stupid stupid idea viruses and memes?

Michael

[jts]

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.