[Link] An argument on colds

Source.

It's illegal to work around food when showing symptoms of contagious diseases. Why not the same for everyone else? Each person who gets a cold infects one other person on average. We could probably cut infection rates and the frequency of colds in half if sick people didn't come in to work.

And if we want better biosecurity, why not also require people to be able to reschedule flights if a doctor certifies they have a contagious disease?

Due to the 'externalities', the case seems very compelling.

Moving my commentary to a separate comment, so as to disambiguate votes on my commentary and the original argument.

Source.

It's illegal to work around food when showing symptoms of contagious diseases. Why not the same for everyone else? Each person who gets a cold infects one other person on average. We could probably cut infection rates and the frequency of colds in half if sick people didn't come in to work.

And if we want better biosecurity, why not also require people to be able to reschedule flights if a doctor certifies they have a contagious disease?

Due to the 'externalities', the case seems very compelling.

Moving my commentary to a separate comment, so as to disambiguate votes on my commentary and the original argument.

Something funny is going on with people's moral reasoning here and I suspect it isn't peculiar to rationalists, but reflective of something in wider culture.

Maybe it is peculiar to rationalists, or I should say, "rationalists": people who think they're rationalists. Quarantining people with colds and not quarantining people returning from places with Ebola have this in common: it is the opposite of the practice seen in the wider world. Therefore, if you take this view, and assemble clever arguments for it, you must be being more rational.

17

[Link] An argument on colds

17

17

17

[Link] An argument on colds

17

17