Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill14564
A 90% or better chance that you are not carrying it added to the 90% chance that it will not adversely affect me is good enough for me. Take either of those away and additional measures are necessary.
"Not one's responsibility to protect you." I believe that argument has been tried with both HIV and measles with poor outcomes.
"Faults of one." It is hard to call it someone's fault for catching an invisible virus that they were unwittingly exposed to. If someone is a carrier of a disease, and right now everyone is a potential carrier, then society asks (and sometimes demands) that the carrier take precautions to protect the vulnerable that they come into contact with, and right now nearly everyone is vulnerable.
All this can change when two milestones are met: 1. everyone who desires to be vaccinated is vaccinated; and, 2. new infections drop to near zero. The first milestone is the 90/90 point and it is safe to assume both that you won't be exposed and that you won't die if you are. The second milestone is simply an indication that the 90/90 point has been attained.
|
Ah, but your "milestone" is impossible unless you MANDATE conformance. You said "everyone who desires to be vaccinated is vaccinated; and, 2. new infections drop to near zero." Not everyone will "desire to be vaccinated" therefore, you are mandating total future mandated compliance with mask wearing. And the only way to your 90% no infections is to eradicate the virus, which can only be done with herd immunity. So, you are asking(?) or actually REQUIRING a mask mandate.
With your HIV correlation, everyone would be mandated to wear a condom, regardless of whether or not they could or wished to have sex. So that association with today's issue is not relative.