should they be restricted to the one virus or all communicable diseases?
Other diseases are much easier to manage, many of them are treatable, I'd say keep it to this particular virus, if you were to apply these measures to ALL communicable diseases, you might as-well take a cyanide pill 'cause you won't walk outside for the remainder of your life.
There are many much more deadly diseases that currently people aren't being mandated how they prevent the possible exposure to and transference of, not the least of which is HIV. Is it okay then for governments to place individuals on permanent "quarantine" if they're discovered to have contracted one of these diseases we have no cure for? No, to use your example, HIV is very easy to prevent, and if you do have it, it's very easy to not give it to other people, and it's manageable with medication, covid is very easy to spread and we currently have no treatment for it. Not exactly a similar thing.
Do we need a mandatory app on our phones to tell us everywhere they've been and everyone they've come in contact with so they can be notified and tested as well? For covid? I would consent to this. Think of China what you want, but the way they handled the virus was excellent. Now China is looking at us in shock at how bad we are at handling this.
Do we outlaw activities that increase the chances of spreading them? Not the same thing, you outlaw sex, humanity goes extinct. It's all about applying healthy doses of common sense in the right situations.
Do we shut down businesses that promote dangerous behavior? That pretty much happens today. Do you know of many businesses advertising reusable needles? I do not.
Can companies choose to not hire people if they have these diseases in order to protect their employees and customers from potentially catching them? Happens today, you know many companies hiring employees with known communicable disease? I do not. Speaking of which, at least in the EU (I don't know about other countries but I am betting they have similar laws) companies have an obligation to ensure the safety of their workers and their employees, and if that means they have to turn down an applicant with known communicable disease, they don't just have the right to do that, they are required by law to do so, because if that one employee makes customers sick, the company is the one held responsible.
What if they aren't sick at all, but participate in risky activities that could expose them... can we refuse them service or employment then?
No, there is a thing called "personal responsibility". If you commit to activities that can infect you with a communicable disease, such as for example, working with blood, you ought to be tested at certain periods of time(here you are required by law to do so in fact, and if you test positive, you won't be working with people anymore until you undergo proper treatment).
We could literally fill page after page of things the governments could mandate that would actually keep you safer than wearing a mask. Not that there's actually consensus that masks prevent the spread of Covid 19. It is proven. Covid spreads through saliva droplets. Masks catch saliva droplets, if everyone were to wear them, the rate of infection would be drastically reduced, look at the countries that introduced mandatory mask wear early on, they're the ones doing much better today.
You only need to spend a few moments on any social media platform to realize that we could spend days just debating what is and isn't even true about it (people have been for months already with no end in sight). What about mandatory vaccines? What about mandatory vaccines? If they're mandatory, you take the vaccine, this isn't debatable.
Can we include preventable heart, lung, and liver disease... simply outlawing smoking and drinking alcohol worldwide would exponentially reduce them. Seeing how almost every single fatality attributed to Covid19 involved these and other underlying conditions it's on topic. Diseases caused by substance abuse are generally not transmittable unless you take second hand smoke into account, hence why smoking is already banned in many public spaces across the world.
Seeing how in my country alone the common flu, with a vaccine each year, kills between 18,000 - 80,000 people each year do we shut down all businesses and schools every year for flu season from now on? Well, all businesses and activities the government decides are non-essential (which we've seen is extremely subjective and inconsistent btw). At what point do we stop wearing masks, etc? It's not just Covid19... Tuberculosis kills more than a million people each year and is spread through the air so maybe when all airborne diseases cease to exist? Thing is, we have treatments for most of them. TBC is extinct in many parts of the world, and there is a vaccine for it. No such thing for covid yet, hence, not the same thing. Covid is already deadlier than the flu, it killed over 149 thousand people in the US alone already in less than half a year.
We could start posting memes about masks.. not like we haven't seen hundreds this last few months covering every possible point of view about them.
Careful Karlotta, better start contributing to Disco or SnakThree will call you out for posting in Flood.
(07-26-2020, 09:36 AM)SnakThree Wrote: Looking through this user's threads in 2020, you can see how there is only two threads that can be counted as legit contributions to Disco. SPS comms are obvious low level RP with meme standard. So the real question is, why do we allow such https://i.imgur.com/DAVIAeW.png to keep posting this crap all over the forums?
(07-26-2020, 02:07 PM)Binski Wrote: You can't be antifascist and support placing obligations on people at the same time.
Clothes are for sheeple. Free your genitals!
Indeed. Also no more stopping at traffic lights. No one has the right to dictate when can anybody run through the intersection, and even less put some colours changing fascist machine in charge of that!
(07-26-2020, 02:07 PM)Binski Wrote: You can't be antifascist and support placing obligations on people at the same time.
Clothes are for sheeple. Free your genitals!
Indeed. Also no more stopping at traffic lights. No one has the right to dictate when can anybody run through the intersection, and even less put some colours changing fascist machine in charge of that!
Thats different. You agree to the rules of the road when you get on the road. No one makes you drive. You consent to follow the rules by getting a license and all that. For the most part, traffic rules have all been ruled on as to whether they're constitutional or not. There is a difference between forcing unconstituional obligations upon people and traffic laws. The road is a government operated system, if you don't want to stop at a red light, don't drive. If you don't want to wear clothes...well technically you don't have to but if you want anything to do with the system, and what we need it for, you agree to follow the rules of society! That is why its a little extreme to, on the other end, mandate people to remain fully clothed even when at home in private, or in private areas like nude beaches. In 'public' if its public property you'd need to have already gone to court and have a judge rule you have established your right to be on government land naked. Basically that comes down to whether a judge says its ok or not, and its not likely anymore! Sorry nudists!