Sacrifice the few to save the many

[TheBigUnit]

I think they ask this kind question in some gov. Jobs,
So here's one scenario, a bottle of a deadly incureable strain of some deadly very contagious disease is broken in a building of about 3000 people,
Would you kill off all 3000 who did and didnt come incontact with the bottle to save the rest of the world or risk the chance of letting people out and possibly spread the disease

I would kill them all off, also btw suppose the 3000 ppl were kid, would u still let
T them out?

[huginnmuninn]

if the only choices were kill or let them out, I would let them out. Mainly because I would like to see if people would an immunity. I might be dead by then but who cares

[FreeFall]

Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't.

So many would lunge at you for killing what could've been studied, or helped or something. Blah blah human life is precious no matter what sort of life it is.
If we let them out, why would you unleash such a terror upon us now we're suffering blah blah blah save us you jerk good thing they were zombies.

I'd kill them. I don't want to risk even the tiniest of particle of death floating through the air from the ground to the 7th floor. If we quarantined them, how many would try to escape/break a hole and spread more/someone would break in? No use in that, just wipe out everything and set stricter training/rules to prevent this from happening again.

[Spock]

I would kill them off, their parents can always have more >_< lol jkjkjkjk but i would kill them off to keep it from killing off all the world. Expically if it is Japan cause that would spread really quick

[Gigablue]

I would kill them. The disease is deadly and incurable, so they're going to die anyway. I would try to do it as quickly and painlessly as possible. The risk if any of them got out is too great. It wouldn't who they are, be it children or adults.

[Donkey]

Hypothetically, I'd secure up the building completely (24/7 guards, panelled windows, etc) and convert it into a refuge centre where protected doctors and nurses are on hand. put some leisure activities in too.

[Azunite]

Impose a quarantine. Give them food and water until the healthy people in the country/local area are persuaded that they are beyond saving, then take care of them.

[TheBigUnit]

I'm pretty sure a quarantine will be most like what happens

[Professional Russian]

Get Me A Gas Mask And My SKS. Im Going to War. But Seriously i wouls get to building in the middle of nowhere where it is less likely to find some who was infected. any refugees that weren't infected could come and stay be the ones that were would be shot.

[Mortal Coil]

Hypothetically, I'd secure up the building completely (24/7 guards, panelled windows, etc) and convert it into a refuge centre where protected doctors and nurses are on hand. put some leisure activities in too.

Yup, quarantine with some basketball. Sounds good.

[Professional Russian]

Yup, quarantine with some basketball. Sounds good.

and coffee dont forget the coffee

[Allbutanillusion]

I am skeptical of your claims that this is a question that is asked when applying for a government job. I guess it is possible because in some of those jobs you have to make tough decisions. To me it sound like a question that you contrived after watching the Horror/Sci-Fi/thriller movie "Quarantine".

But, In this scenario , I would Quarantine the affected people if possible. I know some people might complain that it would cost the government too much money to quarantine the people and that it would be quicker and cheaper to kill them off.

Also, another opinion would be to ask for volunteers to be put down like some injured livestock. Based on what you stated that it is deadly and incureable I think if people knew that they were going to suffer, they would just say to end it for them now. There are a few other factors that need to be taken into consideration when making a decision on something like this.

[ManyPearTree]

I'd kill them all off. If an epidemic were at this point then the government would most likely hire somebody to kill them and then claim it was a terrorist attack or something.

[TheBigUnit]

I am skeptical of your claims that this is a question that is asked when applying for a government job. I guess it is possible because in some of those jobs you have to make tough decisions. To me it sound like a question that you contrived after watching the Horror/Sci-Fi/thriller movie "Quarantine".

But, In this scenario , I would Quarantine the affected people if possible. I know some people might complain that it would cost the government too much money to quarantine the people and that it would be quicker and cheaper to kill them off.

Also, another opinion would be to ask for volunteers to be put down like some injured livestock. Based on what you stated that it is deadly and incureable I think if people knew that they were going to suffer, they would just say to end it for them now. There are a few other factors that need to be taken into consideration when making a decision on something like this.

I watched quarentine a while back, mediocre movie, kinda scary,

But I do know there are jobs tht asks these kinds of questions more like to test their psycology than anything