Quote from: myrkul on October 31, 2012, 04:17:40 AM

Quote from: bitcoinbitcoin113 on October 31, 2012, 04:11:58 AM

Quote from: myrkul on October 31, 2012, 04:06:42 AM

Quote from: bitcoinbitcoin113 on October 31, 2012, 03:44:15 AM

Quote from: myrkul on October 31, 2012, 03:37:29 AM

Quote from: bitcoinbitcoin113 on October 31, 2012, 03:16:32 AM

I don't think the concept of fault applies. The reality of the situation is that it is bad for the infected person to be around others until a solution is found, one way or another this problem will be dealt with. We see how the government dealt with it. It could be done better, but usually such decisions are made under uncertain conditions. Noone knows how infectious the disease is or the route by which it travels, etc. Ideally, symptomless carriers should be rewarded somehow.

Fault definitely applies. Maybe not the first time the disease gets passed on, but once they've been told they're contagious, it's on them to see that it doesn't happen again.

I agree somewhat. It is also on others to create an environment that allows the information to flow as accurately as possible about who may have bad disease X, so that anti-social behaviour by the infected person is not significant point of failure in the system, while not leading to undue ostracization.

Anti-social behavior should lead to ostracization.

Once again agreed, but if the default response to being infected is to ostracize the person, then the expected result is antisocial behaviour. I am talking about what happens due to the initial diagnosis.

Ah, definitely, but as has been pointed out, there are places for those who are infected with contagious diseases and thereby ostracized from society. Those places are called hospitals. Wink

Yea, and they are mostly unpleasant places. For that reason, most people will put up resistance against being put in a hospital unless undeniably ill. Make hospitals like McDonalds for adults and people will willingly go. Casinos, etc.