In this case, I do not mean individuals. I mean businesses.
> For healthy people under 50
This is not their choice: in the US you have completely unnecessary businesses forcing people with conditions, elderly people, etc. that could be transacted entirely online forcing people to "go to work or get fired and we will refuse any unemployment claim because you decided to no-show", "you are not allowed to wear masks because you will scare customers, even if you buy masks yourself", -type of bullshit. It does not help that unemployment is also rather broken or overloaded and people are not getting paid that need it the most.
This is unacceptable. And yes, you can argue that the individuals for this can eventually win in court, but they are also generally from populations where knowing how to navigate the complexity of the legal system is rare.
This comparison would be a lot better if certain portions of the US were not under situations where they are stuck between a rock and a hard place with regard to work availability, workers' rights, etc.
> But curtailing others’ freedom due to their own fears is not OK.
It's not only fears of individuals, but also a rate limited healthcare system. The people making the risk assessment as an individual to go out and gather should also consider "you no longer have access to medical care" as part of the risk assessment.
Exactly. And now we have Trump "considering" whether to pass an executive order allowing companies to require a waiver for their employees that they won't be liable, even if you get sick on the job.
> For healthy people under 50
This is not their choice: in the US you have completely unnecessary businesses forcing people with conditions, elderly people, etc. that could be transacted entirely online forcing people to "go to work or get fired and we will refuse any unemployment claim because you decided to no-show", "you are not allowed to wear masks because you will scare customers, even if you buy masks yourself", -type of bullshit. It does not help that unemployment is also rather broken or overloaded and people are not getting paid that need it the most.
This is unacceptable. And yes, you can argue that the individuals for this can eventually win in court, but they are also generally from populations where knowing how to navigate the complexity of the legal system is rare.
This comparison would be a lot better if certain portions of the US were not under situations where they are stuck between a rock and a hard place with regard to work availability, workers' rights, etc.
> But curtailing others’ freedom due to their own fears is not OK.
It's not only fears of individuals, but also a rate limited healthcare system. The people making the risk assessment as an individual to go out and gather should also consider "you no longer have access to medical care" as part of the risk assessment.