Take This Medicine Or Go To Jail

IceToEskimos

IceToEskimos

Banned
Oct 18, 2011
5,415
130
0
www.linkedin.com
In California it's a crime to have a contagious condition and refuse treatment.

quarantine.jpg


I think this is a pretty interesting story, it reminds me a little bit of Typhoid Mary, although the man in this case is far from aysmptomatic.
 


I'm hearing echoes of Glen Mill, not Typhoid Mary.

It really hinges on whether or not the subject at hand even understands what his disease is, much less the potential impact of it on others. I doubt he even had a basic understanding of what an infectious disease is.

Looking forward to coming back to this later when Godwin's law has kicked in and someone from a country with a medical standard that makes my kitchen counter look like an appealing surgical surface is telling me vaccines are worse than Hitler :)

I digress, this is the sticky stuff I avoid thinking about on Saturdays.

California really can't learn from history though,
can they?
 
That's why anarcho societies don't exist. They allow the ill to infect everyone. Then they go extinct.

Remember vaccination is all about Mercury
 
notwayne said:
That's why anarcho societies don't exist. They allow the ill to infect everyone. Then they go extinct.

Remember vaccination is all about Mercury
Click to expand...

On the one hand, it's a dangerous precedent to set. If you can be detained for having one contagious disease, you can ostensibly be detained for having any contagious disease.

On the other hand, nobody wants people with XDR-TB running around infecting people left and right.

I'm not sure what the morally consistent solution is here.
 
Well the thing about the precedent sucks. Let him walk, give it a year and there won't be anyone to complain about it anymore.

There's no morally consistent solution. There's only one that leaves people with the ability to worry about morals. bacteria don't give a shit about morals.

Anyone who has a contagious disease and refuses treatment but wants to play society should be subject to forced quarantine.

I'm not a fan of this greater good bullshit at all, but you have to draw the line somewhere. People who give bacteria time to adjust to modern medicine put it at risk. If you wipe the last couple viable antibiotics strands out you can quit differentiating between lethal and not lethal diseases. All of them will get that status back. On the bright side it would solve world hunger.
 
notwayne said:
Anyone who has a contagious disease and refuses treatment but wants to play society should be subject to forced quarantine.
Click to expand...

Does this include influenza?

Because that little bug has a nasty habit of killing seniors and babies (our most important and valuable citizens who must be protected at all costs).
 
notwayne said:
influenza is viral. You'll notice how my argument doesn't apply.
Click to expand...

Viruses do give a shit about morals?

I don't see why there's a reason to look at bacterial infections differently than viral infections. In fact, viruses tend to be far more transmissible, and less treatable. It would be fair to say that the majority of viral infections qualify as "drug resistant" at this point in time, simply because antivirals haven't been developed to treat them.
 
This is apropos to the Ebola outbreak in Africa, and specifically the woman who fled a hospital (with the help of family) after testing positive for the virus.

Salon had a great headline for their article on Friday:
"A woman with deadly Ebola virus escapes quarantine, now loose in a city of 1 million"

She has since turned herself in and died in an ambulance enroute to hospital, iirc. Parents now in quarantine.

Current Ebola outbreak is 60% fatal and can be as high as 90%. Has a 2 to 21 day incubation period, so plenty of time to infect others.
 
yea. It can't be treated. You can thus not deny treatment.

You can't fuck the anti virals up because there are none.

i don't know whether you're one of the anti vaccination idiots but that system works well.

viral infections are lethal or they're not. There's no widespread dangerous easily transmissible with no vaccine out there because it would be on the news for two days and then there'd be noone left to write news.

The preceding paragraph is wrong because ebola.


How is this all relevant? viruses are battled by prevention(vaccination) when it doesn't apply, lots of people die. (ebola)

bacteria are battled with antibiotics. There are antibiotics resistant pathogens. They kill people. luckily, we are smart enough to contain them.


If you really want to have a bit more freedom, try not to discredit yourself by attacking the concept that makes society as we know it possible. We can't abolish the archaic concept of quarantine because it would kill all of us.


To answer your other question. babies are rarely refusing treatment. The elderly can grab an influenza shot. Up to them.
 
notwayne said:
yea. It can't be treated. You can thus not deny treatment.

You can't fuck the anti virals up because there are none.
Click to expand...

They get fucked up too.



notwayne said:
There's no widespread dangerous easily transmissible with no vaccine out there because it would be on the news for two days and then there'd be noone left to write news.
Click to expand...

You need to get hip to emerging coronaviruses, son. They are cutting edge, like SE4.

notwayne said:
How is this all relevant? viruses are battled by prevention(vaccination) when it doesn't apply, lots of people die. (ebola)
Click to expand...

Actually, protease inhibitors and polymerase inhibitors are increasingly being viewed as a better solution than vaccination for a variety of conditions.



notwayne said:
If you really want to have a bit more freedom, try not to discredit yourself by attacking the concept that makes society as we know it possible. We can't abolish the archaic concept of quarantine because it would kill all of us.
Click to expand...


I'm not convinced that the .gov is the best choice when it comes to identifying infection risks and/or enforcing quarantine measures. I mean, maybe it's possible that this is the one thing they are good at, but I doubt it.
 
Napolean said:
Or they would build an immunity to the disease over time. What if laws and regulations are actually preventing our immune systems from evolving?
Click to expand...

Because viruses and bacteria totally don't evolve at a rate that we could never, ever keep up with without medical intervention or anything.
 
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VROWK_5LnAc&list=PLg4vXF5MymneHDrCqvpAAJK26dXBrKHMQ&index=33"]Al Pacino sings "By the time I get to Phoenix" - YouTube[/ame]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom