I’m with the ‘fuck those guys; let them rot’ with one condition: There is a system in place to evacuate those that are unable to leave by themselves, and that no one is left behind because of circumstances outside their control. Also, all children under 18 will be evacuated, and that goes no matter what the parents / guardians have to say about it. If the parents choose to get in the way and cause trouble, make it crystal-fuckan-clear to them that they have a choice - stay out of the way, or get arrested for child endangerment (and lose custody, btw).
Bullshit!
Holy s#!+! They’re barely into this. The eye probably isn’t over them yet, rivers rising is a trailing event, meaning they continue to go up for hours after the rain stops. If they’re crying “Uncle” this early in the process, they should be rescued, only to be given a slug to the back of the head & dumped back into the water. Clearly too stoopit to live. Why are they there if they’re in trouble so early in the process? What happens when the rivers / storm surge ends up on the second floor, as was predicted?
My community was subject to frequent flash floods; an all day rain was no issue, but a thunderstorm would overwhelm the creek’s ability & it would overflow it’s banks bad enough that it would float the cars of the idjits who’d attempt to drive thru; many times moving/driving around road closed sawhorses.
I’m not sure what came of it but there was talk of charging those people, not just moving violations for failure to follow a traffic control device (the road closed barrier) but even reckless endangerment for Fire/EMS who were endangered by performing the rescue. That’s a misdemeanor charge; arrested, handcuffs, mug shots, bail, etc. all for being stupid!
I’m all for that. I believe people should be allowed to try to climb cliffs, wander in the wilderness, sail the Pacific, etc. But if you need to be rescued, you should have to pay the bills. It’s part of cost of that activity. To often right now, the rest of society has to bear the costs, because someone wants an adrenaline rush (or be stupid).
Do what we can to help. But dang it! If it can be determined that a rescued individual could have left, but didn’t? Fine the ever living shit out of them to help pay for rescue efforts.
What about other “stupid” people? Smokers with related illnesses. Fat people who didn’t/couldn’t drop weight and get sick because of it? etc etc Should they be left to rot, or fined/made to reimburse the costs of their “stupidity”?
Fining somebody who couldn’t afford the petrol and accommodation costs to leave is obviously pointless. People with some means won’t have the hundreds of thousands of dollars that sending helicopter teams would cost, especially if they’ve lost everything from the disaster, so fining them is probably pointless…
Don’t they already do this? Most of the high cost of cigarettes is taxes, supposedly to mitigate the costs of caring for smokers. Same with alcohol. Taxing/fining over-eating is more problematic since everyone eats and there’s no way to distinguish between a lazy slob eating 5000 calories a day and a bodybuilder eating the same amount.
There was a heartbreaking two-episode piece on The New York Times’ podcast The Daily today and yesterday about a family who tried to ride out Harvey last year. I highly recommend it.
I think there is a huge difference between “can’t” and “won’t” evacuate. Like maybe the humans can leave but their pets can’t go. Is that can’t or won’t? If after the disaster that was the shelters in New Orleans during Katrina you are afraid of shelters, is that can’t or won’t?
The bodybuilder, of course, being the more “stupid” and should be paying more? I suppose they could levy extra charges on gym members doing bodybuilding…
You wrote:
Now you’re writing:
…which only makes sense if it’s your position that bodybuilders are a burden on the healthcare system. In a country where only about 3% of the population exercises regularly but 70% is overweight, that seems… unlikely.
Your original counter-argument won’t work. It happens. Perhaps we can go back to the thread topic? You’re welcome to start another about this if you’d like.
Five people reported dead so far, which is a high price to pay stupidity. (Ignorance is a lack of information, stupidity is ignoring the information in front of you.) Several people rescued admit feeling stupid for ignoring the warnings, disregarding the claims that this storm was more powerful and would generate more severe flooding. I’ve yet to see anyone claim they couldn’t have evacuated, even for reasons others might find spurious.
No, it makes perfect sense in relation to my actual position.
While definitely heartbreaking, that story has nothing to do with evacuation for a hurricane. Hurricane Harvey hit Rockport, TX - about 150 miles southwest of Houston. My inlaws evacuated from Rockport to my house in the Houston area for safety. The flooding in Houston was because TS Harvey meandered up the coast and parked itself in the area, dropping record-breaking rains. There were no dangers from wind, no storm surge, and no hurricane evacuation order or even a suggestion of one for Houston.
The real problem with means testing is that it will be decided that staying behind to protect an expensive house and furnishings is allowable, but not walking out to stay in a shelter with no security is not.
We could (and do) means test it before the fact. Rescuers are worth as much as the people being rescued. When the risk becomes too great then rescuers are not available. You can’t fly a helicopter in 100 mph winds. You can’t drive a fire truck over a tree.
There are temporary shelters set up away from the hurricane zone for people who can’t afford motels.
“At your own risk” needs to be financial, or else people will fear no consequences of their stupidity. If someone wants to defy warnings to get an adrenaline rush or a terrific selfie, then they should pay for their rescue. Calling out first responders or Search-and-Rescue is not at all inexpensive. Taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to subsidize people’s search for adventure.
Yeah, I’m more sympathetic to people that want to protect their lives. Once the people are out, there’s nothing in the house I’m not willing to lose.
Sure, but a house is more than an asset to a lot of people. I have sympathy for people who stay to protect their homes, more than for those who stay because they did not take the warnings seriously.
Here’s my take on this:
I would not expect ANYONE to come & try to rescue me under these circumstances. I.e., if I’m warned ahead of time that there is a storm/tornado/hurricane coming & it’s strongly recommended that I leave, I will say Thanks for the info. but I’m staying. I would even go one step further & tell them that I don’t want or expect to be rescued; I would not put anyone else’s life at risk due to my decision. Obviously, if I put my life at risk because of this, so be it.
I remember when Hurricane Katrina hit the NO area back in 2005; there was one guy being interviewed by the press (he was a lawyer, I think) and he said that he was NOT going to evacuate under any circumstances, and that if anyone tried to force him to evacuate they would regret it. I completely agree with this mindset.
Again, there are worse things than drowning in a hurricane/tornado - as I keep saying on this board.
I think we (collectively, as a society) are obligated to try to save anyone in danger. Deciding who is worthy of our efforts is wrong IMO. That way madness lies. Even if someone ignores warnings or takes a calculated risk to stay put during an emergency, that person should be treated no differently from those who did everything “right.” At the scene of a car accident or a house fire, no one asks who was at fault. The paramedics and other first responders do their best to save lives, sometimes risking their own in the process.
Later there may be situations when individuals should be held accountable for reckless actions. But it shouldn’t be a consideration at the moment a rescue is needed.
What drives the stupid? How have these people come to a decision to stay given the prior warning and the widespread information about the dangers of staying?
Is it recklessness, disregard for the safety of rescuers, or something other foolish, fickle impulse like the aforementioned Instagram moments?
Are any of them driven by dementia, mental health problems, low IQ, phobias, panic, poverty, infirmity, trauma… ? As a society, does anyone benefit if you penalise people for making poor choices when they were not equipped to make better ones?
I live in Australia. Every summer, the threat of bushfire is a constant concern. There have been times when we’ve had to contemplate that we may be asked to evacuate. That hits hard - just thinking about walking away from 90%+ of all you own and your home, your safe place and refuge from the world.
How many of these people were already coping with everything they could handle in their lives before they were faced with this situation too?
And how do you separate out those people from the genuine morons after the fact?
Nobody “owes” anybody, anytime for anything.