0 Members and 18 Guests are viewing this topic.
Nc.Of course it isn't irrelevant. It establishes the principle that there are actions which Society is prepared to penalise people for because of their negative effects on Society. The fact that this specific one is labelled "crime" is neither simply a matter of degree.Tommy, you are right that that is a far closer example. The problem with your balanced solution of course is that it wouldn't work. All pubs would allow smoking just as they did before. If there'd been a market opportunity for non-smoking pubs without the legal sanction, someone would have filled it.The smoking ban is an interesting one, because it's positive effects are twofold - 1) Non smokers aren't exposed to smoke. 2) Over time, the number of smokers reduces, leading to better overall health outcomes for the population at large. That second one is a major positive for Society and reduces unnecessary cost burdens on the health service. (The argument that smokers pay for their own treatment through high taxes doesn't stand up. If they didn't smoke, they would have more money to spend on other goods and services, which would both be an overall economic stimulus and also be taxed itself, wile they were requiring less attention from the health service, therefore putting a lower demand on that tax income.) That second point is a major reason why Society had a right to expect everyone to take sensible precautions against COVID - because the selfish minority that didn't were choosing to impose higher costs on the rest of Society.There's a similar rationale for the compulsory use of seat belts. If you don't wear a seat belt and you choose to risk getting your face mangled in a car crash when you could have taken very simple steps to avoid that, you impose a very high cost on Society for your subsequent health care. Society therefore has a right to impose a sanction on those stupid and selfish enough to insist on their right to not wear a seat belt.
"Do you still think it’s 95% efficacy for stopping transmission? Yes reduced risk you’ll say but not much"Really? Really???If the vaccines were 'not much' better than nothing at all how come it's taken China a year and a half longer than the rest of the world to get on top of Covid?
BillyYou did what I asked you not to. You go find the issue with the Cochrane review then.Not much to say on my first few points either? Maybe one day you’ll say “yeah you’ve got a point there actually I was wrong”.Do you think we should reduce the national speed limit to 30 mph? You must think it’s rather selfish that people put other’s lives in danger to get to work on time.Should those with smoking induced lung cancer not receive NHS care? These people knew the risks but put pressure on state healthcare, no?Or maybe we should mandate exercise to take pressure off the NHS?Or are these hypotheticals too much of an infringement on personal freedom and responsibility for you?
Quote from: BillyStubbsTears on March 06, 2023, 12:22:31 pmNc.Of course it isn't irrelevant. It establishes the principle that there are actions which Society is prepared to penalise people for because of their negative effects on Society. The fact that this specific one is labelled "crime" is neither simply a matter of degree.Tommy, you are right that that is a far closer example. The problem with your balanced solution of course is that it wouldn't work. All pubs would allow smoking just as they did before. If there'd been a market opportunity for non-smoking pubs without the legal sanction, someone would have filled it.The smoking ban is an interesting one, because it's positive effects are twofold - 1) Non smokers aren't exposed to smoke. 2) Over time, the number of smokers reduces, leading to better overall health outcomes for the population at large. That second one is a major positive for Society and reduces unnecessary cost burdens on the health service. (The argument that smokers pay for their own treatment through high taxes doesn't stand up. If they didn't smoke, they would have more money to spend on other goods and services, which would both be an overall economic stimulus and also be taxed itself, wile they were requiring less attention from the health service, therefore putting a lower demand on that tax income.) That second point is a major reason why Society had a right to expect everyone to take sensible precautions against COVID - because the selfish minority that didn't were choosing to impose higher costs on the rest of Society.There's a similar rationale for the compulsory use of seat belts. If you don't wear a seat belt and you choose to risk getting your face mangled in a car crash when you could have taken very simple steps to avoid that, you impose a very high cost on Society for your subsequent health care. Society therefore has a right to impose a sanction on those stupid and selfish enough to insist on their right to not wear a seat belt.The New Inn in Appletreewick was a no smoking pub years before the ban came in
Nc.Of course it isn't irrelevant. It establishes the principle that there are actions which Society is prepared to penalise people for because of their negative effects on Society. The fact that this specific one is labelled "crime" is neither simply a matter of degree.Tommy, you are right that that is a far closer example. The problem with your balanced solution of course is that it wouldn't work. All pubs would allow smoking just as they did before. If there'd been a market opportunity for non-smoking pubs without the legal sanction, someone would have filled it.The smoking ban is an interesting one, because it's positive effects are twofold - 1) Non smokers aren't exposed to smoke. 2) Over time, the number of smokers reduces, leading to better overall health outcomes for the population at large. That second one is a major positive for Society and reduces unnecessary cost burdens on the health service. (The argument that smokers pay for their own treatment through high taxes doesn't stand up. If they didn't smoke, they would have more money to spend on other goods and services, which would both be an overall economic stimulus and also be taxed itself, wile they were requiring less attention from the health service, therefore putting a lower demand on that tax income.) That second point is a major reason why Society had a right to expect everyone to take sensible precautions against COVID - because the selfish minority that didn't were choosing to impose higher costs on the rest of Society.There's a similar rationale for the compulsory use of seat belts. If you don't wear a seat belt and you choose to risk getting your face mangled in a car crash when you could have taken very simple steps to avoid that, you impose a very high cost on Society for your subsequent health care. Society therefore has a right to impose a sanction on those stupid and selfish enough to insist on their right to not wear a seat belt.
For every Heneghan there's a Neil Ferguson and Devi Sridhar.
One doesn't actually need science to show that a correctly selected and properly fitted mask prevent inhalation of fine particles of any type. Therefore it is common sense that a wearer would have some degree of protection, depending on the mask and the airborne particle.The only time I can think of that a mask would not be advisable is when using certain types of poison baits.
But weren’t masks supposed to protect others, not the wearer.