Opinion of public officials who disobey their own quarantine/social distancing orders

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Scum of the earth. Politicians should be subject to the same rules as the rest of us.

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

I have no words - complete scumbags.

[Benjamin Frank]

I don't disagree, but this creates an asymmetrical situation where those public officials who want  Covid Safety practices have to abide by them, while those who don't are free to do what they like.

I think this creates a perverse incentive that needs to be eliminated and the way to do that is that when hospital resources are scarce (like now) those who argued against public safety rules should go to the back of the line for health treatment.  As one prominent medical ethicist argues 'If people want to argue 'give me liberty or give me death' they should be held to it.  They shouldn't be able to turn around and say 'liberty didn't work out so now give me a ventilator.''

[dead0man]

come on, this Covid business is really hard on politicians and it's very funny when they tweet from the airport that people should stay home.  Or, like the Austin mayor last week who tweeted from Mexico that people should stay home and not attend large gatherings a few days after he went to a 20 person wedding. 

Most of these bastards have nothing to worry about, what are the voters going to do?  Vote for a Trump supporting Republican?  Nah, these D's are safe.  Under normal conditions they can get away with a little evil because the fool voters believe in the "lesser of two evils" lie.  In the age Trump they can (and will) get away with way more.

You get the govt you deserve.

[DC Al Fine]

I don't disagree, but this creates an asymmetrical situation where those public officials who want  Covid Safety practices have to abide by them, while those who don't are free to do what they like.

I think this creates a perverse incentive that needs to be eliminated and the way to do that is that when hospital resources are scarce (like now) those who argued against public safety rules should go to the back of the line for health treatment.  As one prominent medical ethicist argues 'If people want to argue 'give me liberty or give me death' they should be held to it.  They shouldn't be able to turn around and say 'liberty didn't work out so now give me a ventilator.''

I always wonder how these ethicists think this supposed to work.

SCENE
Mid second wave. The pandemic is out of control and the medical system is on the brink of collapse.Some guy is having trouble breathing in an emergency room. Enter the triage nurse, sporting a Karen haircut

Nurse: Sir, before we admit you for treatment, I need to use my already extremely limited time in this overstretched hospital to go through your last nine months of social media to see if you posted any anti-mask or anti-lockdown sentiment. Let's start with your Twitter handle.

Patient: Laboured breathing

Nurse: Sir, your Twitter handle?

Patient: Wheezes out something incomprehensible

Nurse: Sir, you'll have to speak up, I can't treat you unless I review your social media and ensure it's free of wrongthink. Sir, your Twitter handle?

Patient: Dies

END SCENE

[DC Al Fine]

To answer OP: I always knew in an academic sense that most of our leaders don't think the rules apply to them. It's just infuriating to have it rubbed in our faces so blatantly.

[Benjamin Frank]

I don't disagree, but this creates an asymmetrical situation where those public officials who want  Covid Safety practices have to abide by them, while those who don't are free to do what they like.

I think this creates a perverse incentive that needs to be eliminated and the way to do that is that when hospital resources are scarce (like now) those who argued against public safety rules should go to the back of the line for health treatment.  As one prominent medical ethicist argues 'If people want to argue 'give me liberty or give me death' they should be held to it.  They shouldn't be able to turn around and say 'liberty didn't work out so now give me a ventilator.''

I always wonder how these ethicists think this supposed to work.

SCENE
Mid second wave. The pandemic is out of control and the medical system is on the brink of collapse.Some guy is having trouble breathing in an emergency room. Enter the triage nurse, sporting a Karen haircut

Nurse: Sir, before we admit you for treatment, I need to use my already extremely limited time in this overstretched hospital to go through your last nine months of social media to see if you posted any anti-mask or anti-lockdown sentiment. Let's start with your Twitter handle.

Patient: Laboured breathing

Nurse: Sir, your Twitter handle?

Patient: Wheezes out something incomprehensible

Nurse: Sir, you'll have to speak up, I can't treat you unless I review your social media and ensure it's free of wrongthink. Sir, your Twitter handle?

Patient: Dies

END SCENE

1.Most people with Covid in a hospital don't go on a ventilator right away.

2.However, it would actually work the other way.  A person ticketed for not wearing a mask or at an anti-lockdown protest not practicing safe measures or violating the rules in other ways would go in a police database that would be accessed by the hospital staff.  If the beds are full or nearly full, the person would be told that the treatment is reserved for people who behaved more responsibly.  

[Benjamin Frank]

To answer OP: I always knew in an academic sense that most of our leaders don't think the rules apply to them. It's just infuriating to have it rubbed in our faces so blatantly.

Aren't they just guilty of 'wrongthink' as well?

[Sol]

I don't disagree, but this creates an asymmetrical situation where those public officials who want  Covid Safety practices have to abide by them, while those who don't are free to do what they like.

I think this creates a perverse incentive that needs to be eliminated and the way to do that is that when hospital resources are scarce (like now) those who argued against public safety rules should go to the back of the line for health treatment.  As one prominent medical ethicist argues 'If people want to argue 'give me liberty or give me death' they should be held to it.  They shouldn't be able to turn around and say 'liberty didn't work out so now give me a ventilator.''

You're a total monster.

[Benjamin Frank]

I don't disagree, but this creates an asymmetrical situation where those public officials who want  Covid Safety practices have to abide by them, while those who don't are free to do what they like.

I think this creates a perverse incentive that needs to be eliminated and the way to do that is that when hospital resources are scarce (like now) those who argued against public safety rules should go to the back of the line for health treatment.  As one prominent medical ethicist argues 'If people want to argue 'give me liberty or give me death' they should be held to it.  They shouldn't be able to turn around and say 'liberty didn't work out so now give me a ventilator.''

You're a total monster.

I'm a realist.  

John Maynard Keynes said "when the facts change, I change my opinion."

The pandemic has changed the facts about what is safe and what isn't and that changes what is acceptable behavior and what is not acceptable behavior.  There is a great deal of science fiction written about how when situations change, that ethical responses need to change as well.  Day of the Triffids and The Cold Equations come to mind.

For more conservative people who think they don't agree with that,  they are often the first to argue that people shouldn't judge those in the past by the standards of today.  The reason there is truth to that is because people had more restricted situations than today which limited their choices.  They also had more limited knowledge which restricted their choices.

Virtually everybody follows situational ethics whether they acknowledge it or deny it.