Hacker News Reader

Comment by renewiltord | Hacker News Reader

It looks like a pretty good strategy is to allow people who believe this to go out and kill themselves. On the other hand, what if they’re right and no ones going to die over this? You could require that they pay into a hazard bond that pays out back to them if they don’t get sick.

View on HN

It doesn't just affect them. People who would otherwise not have been infected will likely contract the virus (and possibly due) due to increased community spread from those who do not respect public health guidelines.

This isn't like riding a motorcycle without a helmet. I personally don't care if they want to go kill themselves, but these people are also at the grocery store, or walking in neighborhoods, or at the gas station -- infecting and possibly killing others.

Even riding a motorcycle without a helmet has externalities - more severe injuries from accidents could raise insurance rates across the board, and these people take from the ER/ICU capacity that others could use.

I guess you could have a policy of just letting them die if they get into an accident without a helmet, but that its own host of problems.

In fact not wearing a helmet might be cheaper - a quick death versus a lifetime of care.

They unfortunately wind up taking up hospital beds from people who weren't stupid.

There are many many stupid/dangerous things that people do that can land them in hospital (extreme sports being maybe the biggest example), but for better or worse these aren't banned.

But those things generally don't pose an obvious risk to other people: a paraglider who trains above a kindergarten will be regarded differently to one who trains on a mountainside. And infectious disease is worse yet: the negligent sufferer can harm others not just through direct infection but also indirectly, e.g. by sickening hospital staff.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com