The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Effective public health measures are coercive > Comments

Effective public health measures are coercive : Comments

By Peter Baume, published 24/8/2021

They limit personal autonomy but protect third parties. The justification for what is done rests on the ethical principle of consequentialism.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All
"What is happening now" has never happened before in our , lifetime, and comparing the coercion, which is not working all that well, with mundane, everyday rules and regulations is nonsense.

I'll stick with Sonia, thankyou.
Posted by ttbn, Tuesday, 24 August 2021 9:27:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As far as I am concerned the bottom line is that my life is worth much more than your personal freedom to disrupt other`s lives.
Posted by ateday, Tuesday, 24 August 2021 9:38:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Baume’s response above is entirely pragmatic.

But from any philosophical argument on the subject of health, inclusive of the heading public health, then the health of the citizen is tied directly to justice.

This is the point all argument wanders off across the broad acres of a large paddock.

I’ve noticed the main objections to the powers of health officials and Government control of the movement of its citizens, is predominantly couched in terms of the controls over human rights of the individual.

But to the health officials, the argument to what direction will the allocation of resources take, is a moral one.
Is their focus to be on prevention of disease, or the treatment of disease. Prevention is winning ATM, but that stand could change.

The “real cost” in economic terms, is laying heavily on officials at the top level in decision making.
The balancing of justice can tip in many unseen ways.
The destruction of business as a consequence to locking people away from each other, (the antithesis of most modern business models), is a point in question.

Balancing the human right of a citizen to a standard length of life based on averages, is the goal now attempted.

My guess is, sooner or later they will need to change this stand.

It can be well argued, the destruction of a society in order to save it, speaks for itself; but who pays the highest cost in the end, is the argument of justice.

Dan
Posted by diver dan, Tuesday, 24 August 2021 10:27:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Absolutely agree! Those that don't should feel free to join Sonia somewhere else, anywhere else that'll have them! Where they'd remain free to roam and share any infection, polio, smallpox, whooping cough, blackwater fever, yellow fever, typhoid and tetanus inside, closed from the rest of the world, borders!

And in the ordinary course of events cease to become a problem caused by extreme ignorance coupled to extreme selfishness, for the rest of cooperating humanity! And far better than they and their ultra, juvenile delinquent/infant terrible, attitudes deserve!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Tuesday, 24 August 2021 10:40:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To what end? The difference with smallpox and polio is that those vaccines are sterilising. These ones are not, and there has never been a sterilising coronavirus vaccine, and likely never will be. We're stuck with the common cold for this reason, and we will be stuck with WuFlu as well. The only reason this is a pandemic is that our immune systems are naive to this virus, but that's already on the decline. It will eventually settle down and become a background disease in the way many other respiratory viruses are. The only question is about how long that takes.

Lockdowns don't stop this process, they just kick the can down the road. Potentially, a higher vaccination rate could mitigate some deaths, but, like with the common cold, that doesn't prevent you getting it again in the future, or having some colds worse than others. So, the real question is how far down the road should we kick the can for something we're going to have to live with anyway?
Posted by SilverInCanberra, Tuesday, 24 August 2021 11:15:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In think that you are probably right, Silver.
Posted by ttbn, Tuesday, 24 August 2021 1:01:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy