Covid surging in Bonaire

[tursiops]

Okay, when you can't count on character or other 'noble' factors, get in touch with your inner sociopath and take another look at the situation.

2 Fully vaccinated guys, Bob and Jack, land on Bonaire, get the 'test at your resort' test, each goes to a private apartment rented for solo stay, and both test positive for COVID-19 (both remain asymptomatic). Well, crap. Now what?

Bob calls it in. Presumably his 10-day quarantine period (any way to shorten that?) starts immediately, that day? Or does it start with some sort of confirmatory follow up test? If Bob planned a 7-day stay, he's got to reschedule his flight. Which might even make him add more days than a 10-day total. If Bob's there 2-weeks, maybe after his 10-days he can cram in 3 days or so of diving? In Bonaire, you might 13 dives or so in that.

Jack, on the other hand, decides not to report it. He figures he can largely avoid people, wear a mask what little he's around others, and solo shore dive. He knows he'll probably get caught by the required Day 5 test, but figures that's 4 or 5 days diving he'll get it before they stop him.

But now Jack's 10-day quarantine starts 5 days into his trip, which will extend his stay well beyond what he planned, meaning extra costs, yes?

My point is, from a perspective of sole self-interest, is it in the diver traveler's best interest to report that first day + test, or wait to get caught by the day 5 test?

I'm not interested in any "sole self-interest" perspective. That's the fundamental problem, in a nutshell.

 

[drrich2]

I'm not interested in any "sole self-interest" perspective. That's the fundamental problem, in a nutshell.

It's a problem if what's right for 'me' differs from what's right for 'we.'

But...if doing what others would deem 'the right thing' is also in the best interest of the selfish person, then Bob and Jack end up doing the same thing...albeit for different reasons, so there's no problem in terms of external behavior.

I like to bundle motives when I can; if self-service and community-service agendas align, bonus!

 

[Dan]

Wow. They let you ‘test at your resort’ test in Bonaire? That could be the source of the Covid surging in Bonaire.

I went to Palau last month. Everyone was swab tested on arrival at the airport by the local nurse before going to pick up your luggage. If the result is negative, then they put a wristband before they let you out of the airport. You have to wear mask while in the island and around the islanders. After 5 days, you need to go to their hospital to get the 2nd negative swab test before they cut the wristband off. You’ll be free to mingle with the islanders afterwards.

I’m planning to go to Thailand next month. I need to get Thailand Pass with similar Covid testing procedure to that of Palau’s, i.e., swab tested at the airport, if the result is negative, then you stay in Phuket approved hotel for 7 days, then on the 5th day you need to get 2nd swab test on a selected swab centers, if the result is negative, then from the 8th day on, you are free to go anywhere in Thailand.

 

[tursiops]

Wow. They let you ‘test at your resort’ test in Bonaire?

There is a presumption of honesty and that you care about other people.

 

[uncfnp]

Of course to soothe one’s conscious one could swab oh so delicately to encourage a negative test. That way you can honestly say you tested negative. People that only look to their own self interest will find a way.

I have seen some truly (to me) egregious behavior including knowingly exposing elderly parents.

But in this case I can understand Dr Rich’s point that a diver could rationalize their behavior if they know they will be exposing few people. The fact that most have access to vaccination has also changed some people’s behavior in that they are less cautious around others.

 

[Lorenzoid]

Jack, on the other hand, decides not to report it. He figures he can largely avoid people, wear a mask what little he's around others, and solo shore dive. He knows he'll probably get caught by the required Day 5 test, but figures that's 4 or 5 days diving he'll get it before they stop him.

I would respond that it's not up to any of us to "figure" what might be reasonable under the circumstances. If a person takes a vacation, they implicitly agree to play by the rules of their destination--where we are the guests, who should be on our best behavior. We roll the dice if we take a vacation right now. When I book a trip, I need to accept the possibility that up to the entire trip could be forfeited. I will buy insurance, but I need to recognize I may miss out on the diving and spend a week in quarantine. I'd be more sympathetic if we were talking about people whose jobs were on the line skirting the rules in order to feed their families.

 

[drrich2]

I'd be more sympathetic if we were talking about people whose jobs were on the line skirting the rules in order to feed their families.

You expressed a concern over what people only held to the 'honor system' would do.

Call me a cynic, but it makes me wonder how many people are actually calling in their positive self-test result.

I'm trying to get a sense of what the answer to your question here might be.

I'm not judging the choices people make. My judgment wouldn't change anything for them anyway. Those people you alluded to when you expressed concern won't be on their 'best behavior.' They'll act in their own perceived best interest.

I'd like to know if that agenda coincides with the ethical high ground. If what's expedient for the individual coincides with what you deem the right thing to do, then it's more likely we won't have people cheating and going around with a potentially higher risk of spreading SARS-CoV-2.

In other words, right or wrong, what will (not should) people do?

Richard.

 

[tursiops]

You expressed a concern over what people only held to the 'honor system' would do.

I'm trying to get a sense of what the answer to your question here might be.

I'm not judging the choices people make. My judgment wouldn't change anything for them anyway. Those people you alluded to when you expressed concern won't be on their 'best behavior.' They'll act in their own perceived best interest.

I'd like to know if that agenda coincides with the ethical high ground. If what's expedient for the individual coincides with what you deem the right thing to do, then it's more likely we won't have people cheating and going around with a potentially higher risk of spreading SARS-CoV-2.

In other words, right or wrong, what will (not should) people do?

Richard.

You are on the edge of suggesting a false dichotomy: people either act in the own self-interest or they exhibit ethical behavior. If that is really want you want to suggest, then I would argue that one's self-interest should include the down-side of non-ethical behavior. That is, for example, any person being non-ethical and endangering others will no longer be permitted to enter Bonaire, their name will be provided to all major airlines as potential problem passengers, and dive shops will be encouraged not to let them on any dive trips or dive boats. Restaurants will shun them, people will cross the street to stay away from them, and insurance companies will refuse to insure them. Children will laugh at them and point fingers. Etc.

Get my point? If people want to be bozos, then the system has to say that being a bozo is not going to be fun, will cost you money, and will ruin your life.
People will follow their self-interest, sure, so the system has to make it intolerable for them to ignore others and act as sociopaths.
Does this act against "freedom of choice and behavior?" Damn straight it does. Your freedom stops if it affects me negatively.

My choice cannot be to go to Bonaire and behave as I wish. That is both rude and unacceptable.

 

[drrich2]

You are on the edge of suggesting a false dichotomy: people either act in the own self-interest or they exhibit ethical behavior.

That's what I want to find out, whether it's a dichotomy or not in this circumstance. It's possible both courses of action are the same under these circumstances.

Get my point?

Yes, but my point is very different. Since the concern was raised that under the honor system some people who test positive will not report themselves, and this might endanger others, I'd like to know how these people (who presumably aren't constrained by moral/ethical concerns in the matter) are likely to choose to act.

I'm not interested in moralizing it, because for me to do so will accomplish nothing. Under the current system, these people can simply not report themselves, and if challenged later, lie and claim they tested negative.

So what does a hypothetical sociopath in that situation choose to do? Makes sense of him under the current system?

 

[tursiops]

That's what I want to find out, whether it's a dichotomy or not in this circumstance. It's possible both courses of action are the same under these circumstances.

Yes, but my point is very different. Since the concern was raised that under the honor system some people who test positive will not report themselves, and this might endanger others, I'd like to know how these people (who presumably aren't constrained by moral/ethical concerns in the matter) are likely to choose to act.

I'm not interested in moralizing it, because for me to do so will accomplish nothing. Under the current system, these people can simply not report themselves, and if challenged later, lie and claim they tested negative.

So what does a hypothetical sociopath in that situation choose to do? Makes sense of him under the current system?

This is an uninteresting discussion. There are three angels on the head of a pin.