Read 5051 times

  • CO2
  • Waygook Lord

    • 6721

    • March 02, 2015, 03:41:14 pm
    • Uiwang
47-11 for the Not Agree side.

A lot of neutral/don't know, too.

Thanks for voting.
The first thing to say is that this is definitely not pyramid selling, OK?


Here's perhaps a more pertinent question- If a protected group (race/orientation/disability/religion/etc.) is 2% of the population, at what level of percentage of infected do they have to be for a blanket search to be justified?

A) Never justified
B) 80%+
C) 60%+
D) 40%+
E) 20%+
F) Other

For me I'd have to say north of 20%. But then again, the overall numbers are kinda low, so maybe 40% or even 60% if numbers aren't that high. One superspreader at the local LDS church infecting 220 shouldn't result in every Mormon in the province being tested if there's only 400 total cases amongst the general population. On the other hand if 220,000 out of 400,000 are Mormons, than yeah, probably every Mormon should be tested. You can make a moral argument still, but you can't say there isn't a practical one.


  • Kyndo
  • Moderator LVL 1

    • 1970

    • March 03, 2011, 09:45:24 am
    • Gyeongsangbuk-do
Depends on the severity of whatever it is they're infected with. Covid19? Sure, 20% sounds reasonable. Ebola? 1%!
Also depends on how much of a difference that % is with the larger population, I guess.

Although I think what a lot of people are objecting to is that the blanket search is either too narrow in scope, or too wide in scope.
If the gov narrowed the search criteria to "all foreign workers who work in conditions similar to where the outbreak occurred", then I think people would be happier.
Similarly, if the gov expanded the scope to "all people (regardless of nationality/race) who work in factories", most of us would be happier as well.

I think that the problem is that currently the scope of the search includes people who are not at all in the at-risk group, but just happen to share a non-related characteristic (ie not being Korean). This criteria needs to be changed so as not to give the appearance that Koreanness or the lack thereof is the determining factor for covid19 infection.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2021, 09:46:07 am by Kyndo »


  • fka
  • Expert Waygook

    • 823

    • September 05, 2019, 06:37:44 pm
    • Seoul
Here's perhaps a more pertinent question- If a protected group (race/orientation/disability/religion/etc.) is 2% of the population, at what level of percentage of infected do they have to be for a blanket search to be justified?

A) Never justified
B) 80%+
C) 60%+
D) 40%+
E) 20%+
F) Other

For me I'd have to say north of 20%. But then again, the overall numbers are kinda low, so maybe 40% or even 60% if numbers aren't that high. One superspreader at the local LDS church infecting 220 shouldn't result in every Mormon in the province being tested if there's only 400 total cases amongst the general population. On the other hand if 220,000 out of 400,000 are Mormons, than yeah, probably every Mormon should be tested. You can make a moral argument still, but you can't say there isn't a practical one.

It should be based on epidemiological evidence about the common factors that lead to transmission. Race, disability, etc. are completely irrelevant in most cases, unless related to a specific outbreak cluster (i.e., at a school for the deaf, or a retirement home 100% inhabited by indigenous Australians). Even then, the epidemiological approach should be more refined than what we saw in this dumb scapegoating effort in Korea. Religion was relevant in the Korean church / cult clusters because those churches were organizing regular gatherings, often in violation of safety protocols. Catholics weren't given any extra scrutiny because they weren't (as far as we know). Again, it's the activity that matters, not the social category.

Again, a foreign passport is not a strong determinant of COVID-19 infection. Workplace and residential environment are.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2021, 11:12:07 am by fka »