I'm having trouble reading this in any way where it isn't obviously false.
Unless there's a secret source of hazmat suits I haven't heard about, other people's poor behavior in a pandemic creates a measurable, deadly risk to the people who follow the guidelines.
> other people's poor behavior in a pandemic creates a measurable, deadly risk to the people who follow the guidelines.
How much of a risk, compared to all the other risks we all undergo every day?
Also, how much of the risk is not there if you really, truly follow the guidelines? I see a lot of people who might think they are, but they're not. They don't wear their masks properly, or they wear a loose weave cloth bandana or scarf instead of an actual mask. They don't actually social distance--for example, I routinely see people in the checkout line at the supermarket not even making use of the 6-feet-apart markings that the store has put on the floor. They don't avoid crowds. They don't minimize the time they spend in indoor spaces that aren't their home.
In other words, you don't need a hazmat suit to mitigate the risk. But you do need to pay attention to detail and understand what properly following the guidelines actually means.
> How much of a risk, compared to all the other risks we all undergo every day?
For a single didactic example-- someone with diabetes walking in to pick up a take-out salad from a bar filled with unmasked people is normally a very low risk activity.
That same activity in a pandemic where percentage positive is approaching uncontrolled spread is prohibitively risky.
Am I missing a hidden premise here that's causing you to dig in your heels? It feels legitimately odd to need to explicitly defend the idea that there exist inescapable negative consequences for the wider community when a critical mass of people actively shirk their responsibility to be safe during a pandemic.
> someone with diabetes walking in to pick up a take-out salad from a bar
Can simply not do that in the current high risk environment. There are plenty of places offering take out food that don't require you to go into a room full of unmasked people to pick it up. So voting with your wallet seems like a perfectly viable option to incentivize businesses to take proper precautions and ensure that their customers do.
Also, are you assuming this person with diabetes is properly following all the guidelines? Are they wearing an appropriate mask, and wearing it properly (covering both their mouth and nose with a good seal all around)? Are they washing their hands right afterwards? (Or wearing gloves--my wife and I do that in cases where we can't be sure about whatever we're going to have to touch.) Are they minimizing the time they spend in enclosed spaces that aren't their home? Those are all things you can do to mitigate risk in situations where you have to go somewhere, such as the grocery store.
> It feels legitimately odd to need to explicitly defend the idea that there exist inescapable negative consequences
They're not "inescapable". That's the point. If you know you live in a society where a lot of people are not taking proper precautions, then you can take that into account in planning your own life and taking your own precautions. My wife and I have been doing that since the end of February 2020. It's doable. And since it's doable, I don't buy the claim that there are "inescapable" negative consequences.
You can't see someone catch COVID-19. You can't see someone infected with COVID-19.
You can see someone drink a beer. You can see someone acting as though they were drunk.
You can't have a free society without assuming a high degree of risk, period. That's part of the deal. You want a large amount of freedom, you have to accept a large amount of risk. People who can't cope with that need to realize America is not the place for them. I will actively work against people who want to reduce freedoms in America - of all kinds. Freedom is hard, requires work, and sometimes sucks. That's part of the deal.
> You can't see someone catch COVID-19. You can't see someone infected with COVID-19.
This particular problem, though, seems like the kind of problem that is amenable to a techno-solution. If there were a quick way to scan someone to see if they were shedding SARS-CoV-2 virus particles, you could see who was infected, or at least who was contagious, which is the thing to be worried about. Attempts to, for example, take people's temperature before entering a hospital or nursing facility as a visitor are attempts at this sort of technical solution, though of course they are much less accurate than a hypothetical "who is shedding virus particles" detector would be.
So this case would seem to go against the point of the article that started this thread discussion; in a free society, technosolutionism is often the best fix.
I'm having trouble reading this in any way where it isn't obviously false.
Unless there's a secret source of hazmat suits I haven't heard about, other people's poor behavior in a pandemic creates a measurable, deadly risk to the people who follow the guidelines.