At 01:04 PM 4/18/03 -0700, Tim May wrote:

On Friday, April 18, 2003, at 09:21 AM, Major Variola (ret) wrote:

...

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/18/science/sciencespecial/ 18INFE.html?ex=1051243200&en=c0c66bc035169a16&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

They put a police guard on one patient at a hospital and have hired private security investigators to check on people in isolation.

I will make what some here will probably think is a totalitarian sentiment: under extreme conditions, I support quarantine measures.

Actually, I was hoping someone would pick up on the "hiring PIs" part. In the US, a PI hired by the State should be subject to the restraints on govt in the Constitution etc. However the US regime frequently hires private entities (e.g., databases, "civilian" CIA activities) to get around this. Maybe its just a staffing issue and the PIs *are* restricted by whatever passes for a constitution in Canada. I think almost everyone will agree with you IFF the quarantines are reasonable --disease is infectious to randoms, untreatable(?), lethal. And the quarantined are reimbursed (else its govt taking). I do have some problems with the police being able to take temperatures of people on the street (though not at the borders), should medicofascism erupt. You have lost an "anarcho" point :-) by supposing a central ruling medical authority. Each burbclave could have its own (contractually enforced) medical rules. The xian scientists who think disease is mental could demonstrate evolution for the rest of us. The ultraworried (think Howard Hughes) communities could ban entry and travel for even mild colds or not-easily-communicable diseases like HIV. You are actually taking the more reasonable (IMHO) minimal govt ("1925") perspective. Decaf today? :-)