This was an... interesting read, to say the least.
Simultaneously, I agree with everything you wrote in the title + description but completely disagree with the actual article.
In short - you see the cult of personal choice as a threat to public health.
I see the cult of "public health" (quoted because I don't believe that these measures make the public any healthier) as a direct threat to personal freedom.
Thanks for reading and responding. In terms of cult thinking, IMHO, the level of cult like belief is at an al time high. The Democrats have their belief system which can't be strayed away from, and The Republicans have theirs. The media reinforce and feed it. I know too many people that are immunocompromised, have Cancer, or symptoms of the developing "Long COVID" to believe "freedom" has been compromised. It has nothing to do with imposition, and everything to do with selfishness. What about the freedoms taken away from those people when they have to isolate completely? Shouldn't they have the right to NOT be sick? Thanks again for interacting.
Agree entirely regarding the cult thinking on both ends. To this day I don't understand how Americans are OK with the two-party system, but at the end of the day I'm not American so I don't *really* care.
The two are not mutually exclusive - I know 2 folks who died of covid, and a few that I've heard of (don't know personally) who got intense long covid. That doesn't mean that freedoms were not viciously attacked and ripped apart, though.
To have a one-sided view in this crisis ("Covid isn't real" or "Anything is permitted if it saves but one life...") is IMO, myopic and dangerous. There are multiple threats at the same time.
I would argue that no - there is no "right to not be sick". I often use a peanut analogy to explain this point: despite all measures taken, peanuts still manage to harm those with allergies. The solution, then, is to ban peanuts entirely and reduce peanut allergy cases to close-to-0. The argument is "why do I have to risk my life so you can have your snack?", as opposed to "why do I have to risk my life (which is a huge logical stretch when it comes to masks/vaccines) because you don't want to mask/vax up?".
I get sick every summer because every shop, bus and train here blast their ACs on full. Do I get to sue them all now?
Colds cause symptoms that can put you down for a few days, but you're not walking away with "Long Cold", and deep tissue, brain, and lung damage. Peanut allergies are more severe and can cause throat swelling and an inability to breathe. Some airlines used to take this seriously and clean planes of all peanuts or remnants, I know a friend who paid extra so she wouldn't have to worry that her allergies would be triggered. So, in effect banning peanuts, at least for that level of exposure. COVID's long term effects, from children to the elderly, are dangerous and can cause lifelong disability. I would argue that we do have a right to demand as much protection as possible, it's too contagious to leave it up to "choice".
In that case, where do you (or rather - where would you recommend that government) draw the line ? More importantly, what will you do when government puts that line beyond what you consider to be reasonable ?
Remember that the regular flu also kills people and damages their lungs (in the old/frail/vulnerable) too. Don't these people have a "right to not die" as much as covid patients ?
Also, correct me if I misunderstood, but you're advocating for banning peanuts due to the high risk involved for a small group of people.
If so, I re-iterate my previous question - breath analyzer tests in order to start your car, complete ban on cigarettes (2nd hand smoking), where does one draw the line when the argument remains the same (minor inconvenience to save lives) ?
COVID is not the regular flu. A million or more dead in the US alone. It is far more deadly, and with Long COVID, leaves unknown long term damage. It directly effects the future. We won't be able to sustain a functioning society if we don't mandate protections when unusually large numbers of people are getting sick and dying, when simple courtesy would be appropriate, and not unreasonable. It should be mitigated aggressively. A line should be drawn when huge numbers of people are affected obviously. People made the same dubious arguments about seat belts being costly and inconvenient before they were introduced by law. I don't have a problem with saving lives and preventing unnecessary deaths. For people making that argument that their freedom is imposed on, it appears the government is now too busy prosecuting a proxy war and left COVID behind entirely.
I wasn't commenting on the severity of Covid. You said that the common cold (flu/influenza/whatever...) doesn't cause serious damage - but it does. In a select few frail and old populations. Don't their lives matter, just like those with Covid? What justifies accepting their deaths as part of regular life?
2. RE: "We won't be able to sustain a functioning society if we don't mandate protections"
I have yet to have seen a society that was lax on Covid regulations collapse. If anything, the opposite - nations with harsh lockdowns and severe economic repressions suffered immensely.
I have looked at the countries that suffered the most covid deaths per capita on the planet (https://ourworldindata.org/covid-deaths), and have not seen any proof that these countries are collapsing. Here are the top 5:
Peru
Bulgaria
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Hungary
North Macedonia
Let me know if you know something I don't.
3. RE: "People made the same arguments about seat belts..."
My argument would be that my life is my own responsibility (as opposed to inefficiency - the vaccine may as theoretically well be 100% effective and 100% safe, I would still oppose mandates), and the government has no right to dictate that I live my life according to their standards of my own health/safety.
Note that this is coming from someone who always wears their seat belt regardless of the risk of getting caught.
4. RE: "It appears the government is now too busy prosecuting a proxy war"
It's great to find another voice of reason amidst the sea of confusion that has swept the US. I look forward to reading more. I find I'm needing to find touchstones of sanity to hang onto my own.
This was an... interesting read, to say the least.
Simultaneously, I agree with everything you wrote in the title + description but completely disagree with the actual article.
In short - you see the cult of personal choice as a threat to public health.
I see the cult of "public health" (quoted because I don't believe that these measures make the public any healthier) as a direct threat to personal freedom.
Thanks for reading and responding. In terms of cult thinking, IMHO, the level of cult like belief is at an al time high. The Democrats have their belief system which can't be strayed away from, and The Republicans have theirs. The media reinforce and feed it. I know too many people that are immunocompromised, have Cancer, or symptoms of the developing "Long COVID" to believe "freedom" has been compromised. It has nothing to do with imposition, and everything to do with selfishness. What about the freedoms taken away from those people when they have to isolate completely? Shouldn't they have the right to NOT be sick? Thanks again for interacting.
Agree entirely regarding the cult thinking on both ends. To this day I don't understand how Americans are OK with the two-party system, but at the end of the day I'm not American so I don't *really* care.
The two are not mutually exclusive - I know 2 folks who died of covid, and a few that I've heard of (don't know personally) who got intense long covid. That doesn't mean that freedoms were not viciously attacked and ripped apart, though.
To have a one-sided view in this crisis ("Covid isn't real" or "Anything is permitted if it saves but one life...") is IMO, myopic and dangerous. There are multiple threats at the same time.
I would argue that no - there is no "right to not be sick". I often use a peanut analogy to explain this point: despite all measures taken, peanuts still manage to harm those with allergies. The solution, then, is to ban peanuts entirely and reduce peanut allergy cases to close-to-0. The argument is "why do I have to risk my life so you can have your snack?", as opposed to "why do I have to risk my life (which is a huge logical stretch when it comes to masks/vaccines) because you don't want to mask/vax up?".
I get sick every summer because every shop, bus and train here blast their ACs on full. Do I get to sue them all now?
Colds cause symptoms that can put you down for a few days, but you're not walking away with "Long Cold", and deep tissue, brain, and lung damage. Peanut allergies are more severe and can cause throat swelling and an inability to breathe. Some airlines used to take this seriously and clean planes of all peanuts or remnants, I know a friend who paid extra so she wouldn't have to worry that her allergies would be triggered. So, in effect banning peanuts, at least for that level of exposure. COVID's long term effects, from children to the elderly, are dangerous and can cause lifelong disability. I would argue that we do have a right to demand as much protection as possible, it's too contagious to leave it up to "choice".
In that case, where do you (or rather - where would you recommend that government) draw the line ? More importantly, what will you do when government puts that line beyond what you consider to be reasonable ?
Remember that the regular flu also kills people and damages their lungs (in the old/frail/vulnerable) too. Don't these people have a "right to not die" as much as covid patients ?
Also, correct me if I misunderstood, but you're advocating for banning peanuts due to the high risk involved for a small group of people.
If so, I re-iterate my previous question - breath analyzer tests in order to start your car, complete ban on cigarettes (2nd hand smoking), where does one draw the line when the argument remains the same (minor inconvenience to save lives) ?
COVID is not the regular flu. A million or more dead in the US alone. It is far more deadly, and with Long COVID, leaves unknown long term damage. It directly effects the future. We won't be able to sustain a functioning society if we don't mandate protections when unusually large numbers of people are getting sick and dying, when simple courtesy would be appropriate, and not unreasonable. It should be mitigated aggressively. A line should be drawn when huge numbers of people are affected obviously. People made the same dubious arguments about seat belts being costly and inconvenient before they were introduced by law. I don't have a problem with saving lives and preventing unnecessary deaths. For people making that argument that their freedom is imposed on, it appears the government is now too busy prosecuting a proxy war and left COVID behind entirely.
Sorry, I didn't notice this reply until now.
1. RE: "COVID... is far more deadly"
I wasn't commenting on the severity of Covid. You said that the common cold (flu/influenza/whatever...) doesn't cause serious damage - but it does. In a select few frail and old populations. Don't their lives matter, just like those with Covid? What justifies accepting their deaths as part of regular life?
2. RE: "We won't be able to sustain a functioning society if we don't mandate protections"
I have yet to have seen a society that was lax on Covid regulations collapse. If anything, the opposite - nations with harsh lockdowns and severe economic repressions suffered immensely.
I have looked at the countries that suffered the most covid deaths per capita on the planet (https://ourworldindata.org/covid-deaths), and have not seen any proof that these countries are collapsing. Here are the top 5:
Peru
Bulgaria
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Hungary
North Macedonia
Let me know if you know something I don't.
3. RE: "People made the same arguments about seat belts..."
My argument would be that my life is my own responsibility (as opposed to inefficiency - the vaccine may as theoretically well be 100% effective and 100% safe, I would still oppose mandates), and the government has no right to dictate that I live my life according to their standards of my own health/safety.
Note that this is coming from someone who always wears their seat belt regardless of the risk of getting caught.
4. RE: "It appears the government is now too busy prosecuting a proxy war"
Hey, we agree on something :)
It's great to find another voice of reason amidst the sea of confusion that has swept the US. I look forward to reading more. I find I'm needing to find touchstones of sanity to hang onto my own.
Thank you for reaching out I'm just trying to find sanity in an increasingly insane world. I try to write honestly and when I'm inspired to do so.