Pondering the morality of quarantine regulation

[Continental Op 3934]

Well, that's kind of the point of the thread.  One person's happy medium is another's "fuck no".  Where do you draw the line.  What's your criteria?

You started the thread. What's your criteria?

[bernorange 8348]

2 minutes ago, Continental Op said:

You started the thread. What's your criteria?

See post #41.

[JBJ 3649]

Government action to preempt harm caused to others is generally not morally justifiable without strict application to the known causes/effect relationships and immediacies of the threat.  Intrusion must be limited to prevent very specific actions/actors.   Also, some form of recourse is necessary for those who might be still wrongfully adversely affected.

The ebola quarantines were very targeted.  Do you have the disease? Have you been contacted by the disease? There was recourse: Have you been cleared despite being in contact?  Presumably someone could also sue the hospital/locality for release.  Volunteers provided the medical care.

But this only partially applies in the context of a general quarantine.  Because the threats are unknown threats, the normal factors that allow and limit action can't apply - at least until time is given to study the new outbreak. And waiting usually isn't an option.

There are hierarchies of response.   Self-quarantization (travel advisories) is less egregious than physical restriction.  The hierarchies are important to the moral discussion, but I assume the OP meant to focus on the most intrusive policies.

The nature of general quarantine is to restrict the movements of all people.  99% of those effected are healthy. Because we can't identify the 1% who are unheatlhy or know how much harm will be caused by them, the modern ethical approach is the take precautions against the worst reasonable scenarios. 

For example, Dallas and Tarrant counties publicly spray for mosquitoes after West Nile cases are found.  It has at least a perceived negative impact on flora and fauna, but much less negative than a West Nile outbreak.  Whether in each instance it was the right thing to do, it impossible to know even in hindsight.  However, it is at least morally justifiable based on the limited knowledge at hand.

We should still be skeptical.  There are too many historical abuses.  SanFran used the plague outbreak as cover to decimate Chinatown.  Various cholera quarantines have worked to exacerbate the problem by creating worse environments in the affected areas. Historical abuses almost always work to the detriment of the deplorable class du'jour.

Edited February 25, 2020 by JBJ
Affect vs effect

[FondrenRoad 4378]

On 2/25/2020 at 9:11 AM, bernorange said:

(1) Why not?  I'm not trying to be a dick here.  I see this as the crux of the issue and would like to investigate it further.

We may always want a bright line to use as a measuring stick, but with most things that rely on statistics, it is simply impossible.  At any given time, every single person is likely infected with something.  If we set a line at any illness, we'd be in constant quarantine.  Most strains of the flu are common and widespread.  Quarantine would be ineffective.  They are genies that can't be put back in the bottle.

On 2/25/2020 at 9:11 AM, bernorange said:

(2) This is a separate issue that I'm struggling with.  How much liability does an individual have for transmitting an infectuous disease.  Let's assume a worst case scenario - the actor knows s/he is a carrier and contaminates an area where other people are likely to become infected.  How much liability does the actor have for the potential downstream consequences of someone else getting sick and/or dying?  Do people/society bear any responsibility for their own health / immune systems?  What percentage of probability is the threshold at which the potential for transmission equates to culpability?  I mean if the chances of infection from the contaminated site were 10%, I'd say the liability is non-existent.  If the chances were 90%, the liability seems pretty clearly akin to 100%.  Where is the line drawn though?

(3) I suspect it relates to the issue of liability (2).  It's not clearly established.

Again, this depends on the mortality rate of the disease the individual is spreading.  I would expect there to be civil and criminal liability if someone who knows they have ebola gets on a bus and starts coughing blood everywhere.  

On 2/25/2020 at 9:11 AM, bernorange said:

(4) A punch to the stomach is a physical act.  Physics governs the transfer of force to your soft tissues.  A certain amount of trauma is guaranteed.  Laws governing assault are clear from a moral and legal standpoint.  A sneeze into your face is less clear.  You aren't guaranteed to suffer any harm from it.  If you do suffer harm (get sick), who bears the responsibility for it?  The actor transmitting the flu, or you for having an immune system that couldn't handle it?  I see this as the gray area that isn't well defined.

Except the legal system also allows for the eggshell plaintiff when it comes to physical trauma.  If a punch to the stomach causes loss of life because the punchee had a preexisting weakness, the puncher is still responsible for the death of the punchee.  That step up in liability occurs even though the puncher had no intention of killing the punchee.

And I agree that this is not currently true for illnesses.  However, why shouldn't it be?  Especially if we think it is in the public interest to prevent the spread of illnesses.  So let's say you go into your office sick, it spreads, and maybe one person gets mildly sick, and an older person is hospitalized.  Why shouldn't society decide that the individual who intentionally went to work while sick is liable for others getting sick?  And while the infector's intent is not to make others sick, he still shows a blatant disregard for the health and safety of others.  We also punish other behavior that could potentially lead to injury or death even though the behavior only leads to injury or death a very small percentage of the time.  For example, DUI and texting while driving don't require any actual injury.  And while I'm not going to bother looking up the stats, I'd guess that way less than 1% of texting/drunk drivers actually cause an accident.  Both of those behaviors are likely safer than exposing others to the flu.  

In fact, I'd think a libertarian would prefer that to quarantines.  You'd almost never need to quarantine anyone if people were made liable for getting others sick.  Sick people would just stay home when sick.  The real difficulty would be proving direct causation.  If a strain of the flu is "going around" who is to say they caught it from you and not elsewhere?  It would be impossible, which is the only reason it will never happen.

Overall, I think that quarantines become necessary because people think exactly like you.  They don't consider how their infectious disease may harm others and don't take the necessary precautions to stop the spread of it.  They believe that it is the responsibility of others to block their punch.  Its backward thinking.  All we really need to do is change that type of thinking.

 

[bernorange 8348]

On 2/26/2020 at 1:48 PM, FondrenRoad said:

We may always want a bright line to use as a measuring stick, ...

People lived under systems of government without clearly defined laws a long time ago.  It didn't work so well.    So we try to define laws today.  Sometimes the lines we draw aren't drawn well.  We can redraw them.  That's fine.  This topic was intended to explore where the line is currently drawn and what the justifications for it are.  From what little reading I've done on the subject, and I'm up front in telling you that I have not done a deep dive on the subject, there doesn't seem to be any line drawn.  Is it entirely at the discretion of the CDC's subjective whim?  Are there any threshold requirements at all?

On 2/26/2020 at 1:48 PM, FondrenRoad said:

... If we set a line at any illness, we'd be in constant quarantine.  Most strains of the flu are common and widespread.  Quarantine would be ineffective.  They are genies that can't be put back in the bottle. ...

I didn't mean to suggest there should be lines drawn "at any illness".  My expectation is that there are threshold characteristics in a fuzzy logic matrix that fits most people's expectations.  You identified one possibility above - whether the disease is "common/widespread" or not.  JBJ provided some criteria above.  I suspect that there are other factors that we could agree on.  Pondering this question is what lead me to the more philosophical question of individual responsibility for transmission/infection/health. 

On 2/26/2020 at 1:48 PM, FondrenRoad said:

... So let's say you go into your office sick, it spreads, and maybe one person gets mildly sick, and an older person is hospitalized.  Why shouldn't society decide that the individual who intentionally went to work while sick is liable for others getting sick?  ...

Two issues:

1) Philosophical - Joe is a carrier for an infectuous disease.  X% of the population is vulnerable to the disease and Y% is immune.  Folks who contract the disease and get ill can suffer a range of results from minor to major.  The degree of the results largely depend upon the affected individual's health/immune system.  For most people, the state of their health/immune system is dictated by their own choices in managing diet, exercise, rest, stress/anxiety, etc.  Where is the line drawn on Joe's responsibility for Jim's outcome if Jim contracts the disease from Joe?  Does it depend on X, Y or Jim's lifestyle choices?

2) Practical - Jim goes to work and gets sick.  Joe is at work and was sick.  Jim assumes he caught the bug from Joe.  How can he prove it?  Maybe Jim caught the bug from someone else.

On 2/26/2020 at 1:48 PM, FondrenRoad said:

... Overall, I think that quarantines become necessary because people think exactly like you.  ...

lulz.  I don't think there are very many people in the world that think exactly like me.  I also think you don't know what I think.  It would be pretty difficult as I haven't even decided what I think on this subject.

Edited March 6, 2020 by bernorange

[JBJ 3649]

You aren't going to find a good answer.  We are fighting the unknown as much as the disease itaelf.  The best one can hope for is to have a hierarchy of response prepared and escalate or de-escalate based on realtime feedback.

To use an analogy, have a CDC-DEFCON system.  DEFCON 9 is issue information to the various medical groups and hold a press conference.  DEFCON 1 is no one is allowed in public at anytime and crop dust Purell onto urban areas.

[Dutchrudder 11115]

This is a good review of the history and legality of quarantine in US History. It's an interesting question, because it really is the age old question of "do the rights of many outweigh the rights of a few?"  or in this case, the health/well-being of many/few. 

In the case of ebola, which hit Africa and had a couple cases pop up in the US in 2015, there was swift action by the government to quarantine and contain anyone suspected of having it or traveling to/from effected countries. It was also meant to give those infected the best chance of survival, but we had a few people die from it. The virus never got out of containment, and went away after some time, but it also didn't have the ease of transmission as influenzas. Ebola also has significantly more nasty and obvious symptoms, which makes it easier to diagnose and recognize. C19 does not, and since the transmission is so much easier, it's difficult to contain since those infected could be spreading it unknowingly before showing signs of having it.

Quarantining folks suspected for 14 days doesn't seem like that big of a deal, but it is an inconvenience and disruptive to someone's life. I think you would have a hard time winning a civil rights case against it for such a short term, but there are plenty of factors that can help make that case. There definitely is some grey area as the quarantine time rises to months or possibly years if the disease warrants it. Reasonability of the length of time is up to the courts to decide, but you know it will vary based on individual circumstances. 

I think a few weeks ago the case for quarantine was strong, but now it's getting to the point where there is no containment, and it seems exposure for everyone is pretty much imminent. It's in too many countries, states and cities to maintain control of the spread. It's going to hit a lot of people and cost a lot of lives of the elderly and those with respiratory issues. I understand the point of it, especially from a local standpoint where the virus hasn't become widespread yet, but it seems like a lost cause at this point. 

 

 

[bernorange 8348]

The video (at around 5:25) states that there list of diseases which are quarantinable and it can be amended by the President via executive order.    So the system is currently set up without any real criteria at all.  It's just subjective opinion of the President.

[JBJ 3649]

This discussion became relevant quickly.

Edited March 11, 2020 by JBJ

[FondrenRoad 4378]

On 3/6/2020 at 10:11 AM, bernorange said:

People lived under systems of government without clearly defined laws a long time ago.  It didn't work so well.    So we try to define laws today.  Sometimes the lines we draw aren't drawn well.  We can redraw them.  That's fine.  This topic was intended to explore where the line is currently drawn and what the justifications for it are.  From what little reading I've done on the subject, and I'm up front in telling you that I have not done a deep dive on the subject, there doesn't seem to be any line drawn.  Is it entirely at the discretion of the CDC's subjective whim?  Are there any threshold requirements at all?

I didn't mean to suggest there should be lines drawn "at any illness".  My expectation is that there are threshold characteristics in a fuzzy logic matrix that fits most people's expectations.  You identified one possibility above - whether the disease is "common/widespread" or not.  JBJ provided some criteria above.  I suspect that there are other factors that we could agree on.  Pondering this question is what lead me to the more philosophical question of individual responsibility for transmission/infection/health. 

Two issues:

1) Philosophical - Joe is a carrier for an infectuous disease.  X% of the population is vulnerable to the disease and Y% is immune.  Folks who contract the disease and get ill can suffer a range of results from minor to major.  The degree of the results largely depend upon the affected individual's health/immune system.  For most people, the state of their health/immune system is dictated by their own choices in managing diet, exercise, rest, stress/anxiety, etc.  Where is the line drawn on Joe's responsibility for Jim's outcome if Jim contracts the disease from Joe?  Does it depend on X, Y or Jim's lifestyle choices?

2) Practical - Jim goes to work and gets sick.  Joe is at work and was sick.  Jim assumes he caught the bug from Joe.  How can he prove it?  Maybe Jim caught the bug from someone else.

lulz.  I don't think there are very many people in the world that think exactly like me.  I also think you don't know what I think.  It would be pretty difficult as I haven't even decided what I think on this subject.

So Rudy Gobert's actions kind of shine a light on what happens when you provide hygiene suggestions and knowledge, but let every individual actor do whatever they want. 

And I'm still not certain on a bright line for quarantine. I'd still focus on mortality rate, and I'd put it at 10% which is higher than this virus. However, I know that even if we had a disease with a 50% mortality rate, we'd have assholes like Rudy who end up spreading it because they are completely inconsiderate of others.  And carriers who think they are healthy always end up being the problem. They want out. They jokingly touch mics, etc.  Only one way to stop that.  Quarantine. 

But Rudy did that shit on national TV. If I'm the NBA, I sue him for loss of income. Win or lose, you get your point across. 

 

Edited March 13, 2020 by FondrenRoad

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

I'm not certain either, but your comment regarding the mortality rate merits discussion because I suspect if this virus was much more like measles and attacked the age 18 and under population in large numbers, the conversation would get amplified in a hurry. From a gov website, there are estimated to be 74 million children ages 0-17 in the US. Imagine a 2% fatality rate, so ~1,480,000 deaths if I did the math correctly? Portions of this population are definitely like Rudy Gobert and will behave that way throughout and others are like him until it affects children. I guess I can speculate as to why that is, but regardless--there does seem to be a lower threshold comfort level there with respect to behavior/tolerance.

Edited March 13, 2020 by Mrs Whiggins
extra word

[bernorange 8348]

* bump *

I started this thread six weeks ago and things seem to have escalated in this country quite a bit.  When I posted the thread, no one was subject to stay at home orders and domestic travel wasn't being restricted anywhere.  Things have changed.

Quote

...
No matter how well-intended is New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, he is the chief executive of the government of the state of New York. He is not the legislature. He cannot write laws and cannot enforce whatever he has written. That is the least of his transgressions. The greatest of them is his interference with rights expressly guaranteed in the Constitution that he and all others in government have taken an oath to uphold.

I admire deeply Cuomo’s brilliant use of his bully pulpit to educate and intimidate the populace into commonsense behavior intended to limit the spread of coronavirus. But he cannot lawfully — nor could the legislature — interfere with the right to travel and to assemble peacefully because those liberties are guaranteed by the Constitution. They cannot be interfered with by decree or even by legislation, no matter the beneficial goal of the interference.

It gets worse.

Rhode Island Gov. Gina Raimondo is stopping automobiles with out-of-state license plates as they attempt to enter Rhode Island and denying them entry. She has also threatened to send police door to door looking for persons from the New York City region who somehow eluded her border dragnet. And she is doing this with no warrants, no probable cause of crime and no individualized suspicion.

In New York City, where Mayor Bill de Blasio has declared music stores essential to society but churches, synagogues and mosques to be nonessential, we have seen the boldest threat yet. He offered to close permanently — permanently! — any house of worship that presently holds religious services. This barbarity directly violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment that keeps government out of religion.

And in New Jersey, Gov. Phil Murphy is arresting folks for holding coronavirus parties. The parties are insane, the attendees are reckless and their behavior is selfish. But it is not criminal. In fact, it is protected by the right to assemble, which is also expressly guaranteed in the Constitution. What if these assemblages are not for frivolity, but to protest the unconstitutional behavior of the government? Then they’d achieve even added protection — the freedom of speech.

What’s going on in America?
...

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/04/andrew-p-napolitano/taking-rights-seriously/

 

Edited April 3, 2020 by bernorange

[TwiceHorn 31274]

18 minutes ago, bernorange said:

* bump *

I started this thread six weeks ago and things seem to have escalated in this country quite a bit.  When I posted the thread, no one was subject to stay at home orders and domestic travel wasn't being restricted anywhere.  Things have changed.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/04/andrew-p-napolitano/taking-rights-seriously/

 

Problem is, Andy, freedom of assembly is ONLY given protection if it is for the purpose of protest or petitioning the government.  Otherwise it is subject to regulation.  It is not given the broad scope of protection that speech is given.

 

[workswithseed 2036]

52 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Problem is, Andy, freedom of assembly is ONLY given protection if it is for the purpose of protest or petitioning the government.  Otherwise it is subject to regulation.  It is not given the broad scope of protection that speech is given.

 

I just have a problem with it, also the arresting the pastor in Florida.

[Bateshorn 9899]

Hobbes covered this.  Leviathan out front shoulda told ya.

[Loco 3752]

 

[bernorange 8348]

Totalitarian rule. It's fantastic.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rodrigo-duterte-philippines-president-coronavirus-lockdown-shoot-people-dead/

[F250 28682]

38 minutes ago, bernorange said:

Totalitarian rule. It's fantastic.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rodrigo-duterte-philippines-president-coronavirus-lockdown-shoot-people-dead/

This isn't a new policy for Duterte and it is about as relevant to the discussion as actions taken by the Chinese. If Western Liberal democracies were taking these actions than that would be concerning but existing authoritarian regimes acting in an authoritarian manner is to be expected.

 

[EMAWesome 101]

On 2/24/2020 at 5:45 PM, Bookman said:

I think it stems from the fact that we don’t want a lot of people to fucking die.

The question is how much of your freedom are you willing to give up to accomplish that?  I suppose it might even be a two part question.  How much are you willing to give up temporarily (and what exactly constitutes temporarily, a week, a month, a year, a decade?)  and how much are you willing to give up permanently because once government takes freedom away from you it never gives all that it took back.

[EMAWesome 101]

On 4/3/2020 at 11:17 AM, TwiceHorn said:

Problem is, Andy, freedom of assembly is ONLY given protection if it is for the purpose of protest or petitioning the government.  Otherwise it is subject to regulation.  It is not given the broad scope of protection that speech is given.

 

So, say I lived in New Jersey and I had a Pink Floyd cover band playing at the government protest I was holding in my front yard.  The cops should have no right to break up my protest.