Hacker News Reader

Comment by VectorLock | Hacker News Reader

>For instance, the infection fatality rate (IFR) is so low (less than 0.1%) for those under 50 that they should be permitted to go about their business.

Those people, unfortunately, are still able to spread to those who do have a much hight mortality rate.

View on HN

Sure but those other folks can continue to isolate themselves to a greater degree, in line with their own risk assessment. I am not sure I understand the case to curtail one person's rights for another's benefit.

Please don’t post leading questions like this. It’s clear you don’t want the lockdown and subscribe to objectivism. Blanket philosophies always have edge cases and if you can’t accept that there’s no room for debate.

I didn't pose a question in my comment. I made the point that individuals who see a great risk and those who see a low risk can both make choices that fit their individual perception of the situation, without needing to impose undue constraints on each other. I don't see what's wrong with pointing that out. There is room for debate if you have an additional perspective to add to the mix - I'd love to hear and understand that view even if I don't ultimately agree with it.

Interesting idea, but if everyone between the ages of 17 and 35 goes out and gets sick it doesn't matter how isolated your 90 year old grandma tries to be, she's probably going to get sick too.

The point of having society, and of having governments, is that cooperation allows us all to lead longer, healthier, more fulfilling lives. You can't just discard the necessity of cooperation in specific instances where the benefit you personally receive is lower than the amount of effort you need to put in.

>I am not sure I understand the case to curtail one person's rights for another's benefit.

Thats pretty much the entirety of laws that involve safety. My right to drive 150 mph is curtailed for the benefit of people I might kill.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com