That's not accurate at all. If I choose to go to work with a flu, I can absolutely increase the risk I pose.
This happens all the time during flu season. The state doesn't come in to fine or arrest someone who goes to work sick. People generally do this because most Americans live paycheck to paycheck, dont have paid sick leave and dont have free access to adequate healthcare.
Again, that's a risk that can be modulated.
The risk of just about anything can be modulated. My issue is the state imposing restrictions on people with little to no risk of death (the vast majority) for the sake of select vulnerable small minority of the population. Closing people's businesses without complete compensation is destroying peoples livelihoods and the economy. It is also setting a precedent that the government can restrict your liberty in the face of a crisis, even if you disagree with the governments assessment of the risk posed to you.
This does almost nothing to help if the virus is allowed to propagate unchecked. That's not how any of this works. In your fantasy version of this, the obvious solution would involve Seniors, diabetics, people with aids, and anyone with any pulmonary, or vascular problems to hoard 18 months worth of non-perishable supplies and concoct a solution for sterilizing their home's inputs and outputs, as opposed to you wearing a mask sometimes and not standing nut to butt in the checkout line.
I dont care about the masks or longer lines. I am fine with the government and businesses requiring distancing and taking small measures to mitigate risk to the vulnerable population. Shutting down businesses, placing curfews and fining people who aren't committing a crime (actively harming others or depriving them of liberty) is an abuse of power by the state.
For the underlined portion: Its a bit ridiculous, right? At-risk population are just that, at risk. I didn't put them there, its just a fact of life. I should not be in any way punished or my life affected for a vulnerable minority that I had nothing to do with the creation of. The illness is out there and they can choose their level of risk accordingly. There are services like instacart and doordash nowadays; barricading yourself in your home has never been easier. If an individual needs to do so, they can. But the young and healthy population shouldn't be forced to face restrictions from the state for the sake of a vulnerable minority. Less than 2% of the confirmed cases of covid die from it, thats a risk many people are willing to take and thats also not considering that half of people are asymptomatic. There are many people who see a 98%+ survival rate as something that doesn't warrant rearranging their lives.
There are people unconcerned with the risk of death posed by murdering people too. I'm not sure that logic holds.
This is a disingenuous argument. There is a huge difference between actively killing someone through violence and just living your life during a pandemic where 50% of the people who get infected are asymptomatic. One requires malicious intent and is generally unavoidable by the deceased whereas the other can be easily avoided if the prospective deceased stays home until they are vaccinated.
I've seen that happen too, it's not funny. It's honest to god really sad. Seeing my friend lose her dad and her mom have to live out her final years alone because of weird political talking points rather than choosing to be with his family for another X number of years is so wasteful. If someone got blind sided by this, or took every precaution but life just had other plans... there's not much you can do about that. Watching someone choose to throw away a pretty good life with a total disregard for all the people that love them is affecting.
Sorry about your friends parents.
That said, obsessively trying to avoid an illness is a level of precaution some are not willing to take, especially when the death rate is incredibly low. If the death rate were far higher, I
may be a bit more understanding of government intervention for a short period of time, but its been well over a year. This has got to stop. Any state restriction on an individual that is not the direct result of a police intervention or a sentence from a judge needs more justification.
People should be allowed to choose their own level of risk freely, without the intervention of the state unless they are inhibiting others freedoms.