In your counter situation, the same logic is maintained. Authorities would suggest and the wise would obey. The unwise might perish in greater numbers, their choice.
Now if it was obvious I was an immediate threat to your child and yourself, you are allowed to kill me. But shooting up the neighborhood because some person in that area…
In your counter situation, the same logic is maintained. Authorities would suggest and the wise would obey. The unwise might perish in greater numbers, their choice.
Now if it was obvious I was an immediate threat to your child and yourself, you are allowed to kill me. But shooting up the neighborhood because some person in that area might be a threat to you and kiddies would not be lawful ordinarily - except in crazy-town lock-down.
Hmmm, yes agree with first scenario mainly. The unwise fraction would likely be vanishingly small this time. The bigger problem would have been those supermarket scenarios... the staff really would no-show and the fights in the aisles would be hyper-violent and I expect martial law would be important for any order. Military distribution of food etc.
If there was a year delay to this hypothetical child-saving vax, the lockdowns would be the thing policed harder. I read evidence they were useless as implemented, but the Chinese-style weld people into their apartments and reduce interactions to 2 or less per day seemed to flatten the curve (I accept we're still in datageddon but there seems some logic in that policy). So if in that scenario some infected zealous family felt they were going to waltz down your street coughing and spitting to prove their point, and this would likely lead to several more kids dying in your vicinity, what do you do?
The Chinese example is awful. Isolation in apartment block is impossible as they have discovered.
The best we can ever do is try to confine, quarantine the infected and allow the world to go about their business. That's what public health always did in the past with more or less success. Force has been used but that was rare.
Once something becomes really deadly, it stops circulating. I gather we don't really know how deadly vs spread relate. Ebola can't really get going because it's hosts perish rapidly. Shortly after exposure they develop symptoms. Now the worse would be a deadly virus with a longer incubation time but enough replication to spread. That is what was feared most about SARs-CoV-2. Turns out to be at best a few days for that.
Yes that natural balance is a strong hope although the black death in the 14th century killed about a third of Eurasia. But I think there's why the evidence at times are really tough maybe the sun wasn't shining as much and crops yields were terrible
In your counter situation, the same logic is maintained. Authorities would suggest and the wise would obey. The unwise might perish in greater numbers, their choice.
Now if it was obvious I was an immediate threat to your child and yourself, you are allowed to kill me. But shooting up the neighborhood because some person in that area might be a threat to you and kiddies would not be lawful ordinarily - except in crazy-town lock-down.
Hmmm, yes agree with first scenario mainly. The unwise fraction would likely be vanishingly small this time. The bigger problem would have been those supermarket scenarios... the staff really would no-show and the fights in the aisles would be hyper-violent and I expect martial law would be important for any order. Military distribution of food etc.
If there was a year delay to this hypothetical child-saving vax, the lockdowns would be the thing policed harder. I read evidence they were useless as implemented, but the Chinese-style weld people into their apartments and reduce interactions to 2 or less per day seemed to flatten the curve (I accept we're still in datageddon but there seems some logic in that policy). So if in that scenario some infected zealous family felt they were going to waltz down your street coughing and spitting to prove their point, and this would likely lead to several more kids dying in your vicinity, what do you do?
"lead to several more kids dying" hide the kids?
The Chinese example is awful. Isolation in apartment block is impossible as they have discovered.
The best we can ever do is try to confine, quarantine the infected and allow the world to go about their business. That's what public health always did in the past with more or less success. Force has been used but that was rare.
I'm of course assuming a nano-scale airborne viral pathogen with an airborne half-life.
Anyway I pray nothing as deadly AND viral gets created or released.
Once something becomes really deadly, it stops circulating. I gather we don't really know how deadly vs spread relate. Ebola can't really get going because it's hosts perish rapidly. Shortly after exposure they develop symptoms. Now the worse would be a deadly virus with a longer incubation time but enough replication to spread. That is what was feared most about SARs-CoV-2. Turns out to be at best a few days for that.
Yes that natural balance is a strong hope although the black death in the 14th century killed about a third of Eurasia. But I think there's why the evidence at times are really tough maybe the sun wasn't shining as much and crops yields were terrible