kwlf wrote:
The idea that no restriction could ever be justified, however minor, seems quite alien to me.
Malibuflyer wrote:
Fighting a communicable disease like Covid always includes restriction of freedom.
By this logic, it’s time to start locking up HIV positive individuals then…
dublinpilot wrote:
This is effectively what NZ has achieved.
It’s a self-sustained vacation destination at a time when no-one is flying, let alone on a 24 hour flight to get there.
Sounds like you’re advocating for border walls too btw… ;)
Airborne_Again wrote:
Also the New York Times article contradicted itself by simultaneously claiming that life in Sweden was “largely unhindered” and at the same time claimed that consumption had dropped as much as in other Nordic countries.
The NYT has lost nearly all credibility in the last 5 years. Most articles are opinion-based, not fact-based.
On the topic, it has been sad to see the journalistic profession degrading into to opinion-giving instead of news-reporting…
Facts seem to be optional these days, and apologies for inaccurate reporting few and far between. Sad days for the US press.
AF wrote:
By this logic, it’s time to start locking up HIV positive individuals then…
By this logic, it’s time to start researching how one contracts HIV. 
I think its time for government to act to stop sex until all the people who have HIV are dead. Then it will be safe again. Those who might see flaws in this strategy are obviously small minded.
By this logic, it’s time to start locking up HIV positive individuals then…
Not really; HIV isn’t much like COVID.
I suppose we do tell older schoolchildren how it’s transmitted and I know people who regard that as an imposition. (It’s unthinkable that their children will ever leave their religion so will never find themselves in a position where they might need to know).
The shift from the individual to the collective can lead to some thoroughly unpleasant things as history shows.
If it was found that one group tends to be either more at risk or more prone to spreading it then should they have actions taken against them to protect society?
There was the Mcdonalds in China which barred black people from entering. Perhaps this is just the start.
Actions can have unintended consequences and it tends to be the worst countries in the history that have exercised the most suppression of individual freedom and liberty.
DavidJ wrote:
By this logic, it’s time to start researching how one contracts HIV.
Like this?
What if he hadn’t turned himself in… which I presume many have not.
How do you keep infected people like him from doing what he did?
Lock them up, clearly… that seems to be your mantra, although you seem to want to wear the humanistic cloak along with the righteous one. They’re not the same robe btw.
TL;DR
Is your feeling that he should have been locked up when he was first diagnosed, after he had deliberately infected someone, or not at all?
Anyone who carries HIV has a choice of whether or not to risk infecting someone, or even to infect them deliberately. We don’t lock people up for crimes they might have committed, but only for crimes they have committed. Carrying HIV is not a crime.
I think a far more interesting issue is people who are carriers of Typhoid, of which there are still a number around. Typhoid is very different because carriers are always shedding bacteria and putting other people at risk. Even then, at least in the UK, they are only currently restricted from taking jobs preparing food. Is that unreasonable?
A lot of US websites block European IPs, citing GDPR which they believe can damage their business, by enabling European users/customers to demand all sorts of weird stuff. Some of that is an over-reaction, some probably not, but there are loads of people in Europe who think GDPR gives them much more than it actually does.
