[akerr]

There are other possibilities beyond the two you gave. For example, I read of an n=1 study where a doctor was self-administering nasal heparin and was yet to get sick.

You might have a genuine question but it was rude to frame it has an assumption or accusation. Furthermore your follow up is dismissive of the whole community. Please reflect on your behaviour and try to do better in future.

[rob_c]

I only got upity after communal negative response which I think is justified. That's cause and effect.

For sake of being nice I'll assume you're being nice rather than condescending.

Again, no this is not an accusation but let's rephrase,

RFC: Given above information. If I interpret it one way I understand you to be imunocopromised which is missing, Or if I interpret it another way I find your actions to be as one might describe as extreme hypocondrea aka non sensical unless I'm missing some detail.

The reasonable responses from a normal person are;

Yes, I am I forgot to mention;

I just don't want to get sick, this is my level of risk assessment which may differ from yours;

No, see third or fourth alternative you didn't consider.

There is no subconscious bias here, other than to explain my clear bias in understanding. I'm explaining why it makes no sense to me and asking if they can clarify. Again I'm not saying a person is behaving a certain way other than the community is deciding to read heavily negatively into a short paraphrased question. This is the attitude as to why things like irc died...

[sethammons]

It sounds like your intention, as stated, was to give an opinion and follow up question. The downvotes suggest that an innocent observation and question was not received.

When I read what you wrote, I see an accusation and a pithy open window. "Are you broken or dumb?" -- and moreso the comment you replied to said "exciting development; i keep my nasal passages and throat moist for the same reasons." Like, your comment barely follows. Except to say that taking preventative measures that appear backed by studies is a form of delusion.

[rob_c]

At this point I'm going with a poor cultural difference and an assumption of being aggressive. I'm fed up of this. "Be excellent to watch other" was and is not difficult. I'm going with nice, but you do seem to be pushing that I'm a bad person. Which is disappointing after engaging in good faith.

A sensible action based on a sensible observable short term impact is sensible behaviour. I.e. dry throat or not having dry throat, is sensible. I fail to see a problem with logic or opinion here, this is cut and dry and goes no further.

Deciding to take actions which amounted and contributed directly to social calls to shut down schools, damaging economy, making politics even more toxic under the banner of "latest study shows". Is clearly extremely bad think. This has damaged the lives of an entire generation of children because of "what if" fear... I know I'm busy seeing the fallout in teaching.

The daily mail is famous for citing bacon will kill our cure you citing bad latest statistical/biology papers. The BBC in the UK is now just as bad. US media is hitting this low regardless of bias or ownership. All selling the same "worry that an undefined chance of a badly defined thing may kill you if...". This is extremely damaging. Why did the entirety of society end up like their comment sections?