| I see your points, but I admittedly have a different perspective. Sure, no one would force a person to expose themselves to that risk. However, for much of the population, there comes a point where they have to participate in the wider society for necessities, e.g. groceries; obviously, there are a few exceptions to that statement. Sure, they could get their groceries delivered, if they can afford it. But if they can't afford it, then they must participate in order to continue to live. All of this doesn't even begin to touch on essential workers, who are forced to work and may not have an easy time attaining another job. The freedoms and rights aren't being restricted for the benefit of few; it's for the _safety_ of many. The example for driving doesn't match here, I feel. One can observe cars driving erratically and do their best to avoid them or one choose to take an alternative mode of transport in order to avoid getting into a car accident. But viral transmission doesn't have any realistic similarity to traffic deaths. One cannot see viral particles in the air as they get transmitted from one person to another. And anyone who comes into contact with that person is at risk from the moment the transmitter contracts the virus until they become immune. Traffic deaths don't work like that. One cannot choose to not to be a part of society when they are required to participate to be able to live. That ability to live is a right afforded to everyone. Why is someone's right to life worth less than someone's temporarily restricted freedom to do what they want? Are you comfortable dying for my right to see an improv show? Because I'll tell you right now, I'm sure as hell not comfortable dying for yours. Is smashing the already transient lives of real people worth the bottom lines of a few restaurants? |