Monday, July 27, 2020

Coronavirus – a safety analogy

In my opinion taking precautions to prevent coronavirus infection is analogous to following the rules of the road when driving. The general purpose of stop signs, traffic lights, speed limits, railroad crossing gates, and so forth is the safety of drivers, passengers, and others. They help to prevent accidents or lessen the severity of them. Likewise, wearing a mask, keeping a safe distance from other people, washing hands and using sanitary wipes, not sneezing or coughing on other people, and so forth reduce spreading of a virus that may be harmful, even deadly, to oneself and other people.

Refusing to wear a mask (with an exception if doing so truly hampers breathing) and so forth is akin to refusing to obey traffic laws. It increases risk for ones self and other people in the vicinity. That some part of government prescribes what preventive measures people should take is quite unimportant to me. If a business or private road or property owner had and enforced the same rules, would the person who objects still object? Refusing to comply with the only “reason” being freedom dismisses personal responsibility and the reality of the virus. One’s person freedom ends when it impinges the equal freedom of others, and vice-versa.

When I take precautions against the coronavirus, I do so for my self-interest and a regard for the health and lives others. What government says about it is unimportant. Likewise, I drive with my personal safety in mind, which has a consequent regard for the safety of others.

The free-stater man interviewed here doesn’t make the same analogy but agrees about taking preventative measures against the coronavirus. An article The Libertarian Case for Masks describes anti-masking as an irrational anti-government symbolic gesture that all but guarantees more government overreach.


  1. Just for Covid ?
    That doesn’t seem like it makes sense. Are other infections not as deadly or dangerous?
    Influenzas constantly travel through the global population, should similar measures be taken?
    Does the mere availability of vaccinations for flu(s) absolve one of moral culpability from spreading an infection? Do flu shots inoculate and stop viral shed or only protect from disease progression?
    Is Covid worth it ?

  2. My post was about Covid. What would make sense to you? Some infections, like Ebola, are more dangerous and some are less, like the flu. Covid spreads easily.

    "Is Covid worth it?" is an odd question. What's it worth to you?

  3. I don’t believe Covid is the biological threat it is proposed to be. What evidence is there to show the reaction is in proportion to the medical hazard it presents?

  4. Please supply a URL showing credible evidence for your belief.

  5. I'm pretty sure the onus is on you to show credible evidence that the Kung Flu 19 is what you propose it is.
    I'll stipulate I believe it is 'novel' and seemingly highly contagious, easily transmitted, but I do not see it as dangerous to most.

  6. Do you have no evidence? Or is your "evidence" only your visceral feeling?

    See my post dated July 23. I summarized a WSJ article that asked, How deadly is Covid-19? Researchers commonly estimate that it is 6-7 times as deadly as a typical seasonal flu. Of course, deadly has two facets. First, how deadly for those infected? Second, also recognizing how contagious the virus is, how deadly for a population?

    You say you do not see Covid-19 "as dangerous to most." That suggests or implies you see it as dangerous to some. Who are the some? 20% or 10% or 1% of the population? Only people over age 65 or with some specific health conditions?