Quarantines may be justified

[Major Variola (ret)]

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? :-)