Thread: Swine flu martial law in MA

What is usually done here is that if kids have chickenpox, parents often put their kids together (or other people bring kids to visit) to increase the likelyhood of infection. Having chickenpox sucks, but it is best to have it young when it's not so dangerous, and be done with it.

Originally Posted by Bruno

Insane, perhaps, but also some good sense.

Like the disposal of human remains for example. Yes, it is cruel to the survivors. Otoh, if people are dying of something nasty (say ebola or something equally nasty) then the main concern is to halt the spread and to make sure it stays contained.

At such times, I think survival trumps religious niceties (no offense to whatever religion would apply).

Restrict or stop outbound travel: another point of common sense. If there is an outbreak of something nasty, the last thing you want it for people to flee and go to their family in the big city. Again: survival by containment trumps your right to travel as you wish in case of medical emergency.

And if the person in charge of the crisis needs to have something shut down, turned off or on, or moved out of the way, I think it is important he can do so without having to quibble with the owner if it would affect containment or spread of the disease.

Of course, everything should be open and information should be issued as much as possible. People are contained not because they are criminals, but because the spread of disease has to stop.

Sometimes I thank God you aren't an American.

This act also give the power to a single individual to do whatever they want, and enforce their will with military might with no fear of repercussions. The Government never has a right to raid your home without probable cause, and no single individual should ever have the power to enforce their will as law. under this act the health commissioner could at his discretion choose any individual or group for any reason and have them killed, then burn the body's. The could also confiscate any piece of property again for any reason or none, guns come to mind here. This kind of thing is not to be tolerated.

just the basic premise of protecting everyone sounds good, but just think someone saying you have to have a shot or take medicine for something that you may or may not contract is over the top. most meds of any kind have some side effects that are never completely told to you or i, so i think we have the right to reject mandatory vaccination for any reason. just like we have the right not to seek medical attention even if will most definitely kill you. that is part of freedom to the utmost of anyones ability.

Originally Posted by Wildtim

Sometimes I thank God you aren't an American.

Me too.

I understand your side of the argument, and agree with it up to a point. But let's suppose that through terrorism or just plain bad luck, there is an ebola outbreak somewhere in the us, in a small enough place that is can be contained.

Say the place has about 10000 inhabitants, and is fairly close (to US standards) to a big city, lke Austin, New York, or Washington DC. There is a sizable portion of the people who don't care about the rest of the world and just want to get as far away from the village as possible, despite the high risk of infection they carry.

YOU are the national guard commander or health care bigwig who was rushed to the problematic area and are in charge. What do you do?

Do you stop and (if they persist) detain the people trying to leave the quarantained zone, or do you respect their constitutional freedoms and let them infect 1 or more major US cities with millions of inhabitants?

If they try to use their 2nd amendement rights to shoot their way out, do do you respect their constitutional freedoms and let them infect 1 or more major US cities with millions of inhabitants? Or do you shoot them or try to detain them?

What woul YOU do?

Originally Posted by Bruno

What would YOU do?

YouTube - Dirty Harry - Do you feel lucky?