Quantified_Risk.md 2.8 KB
Quantified Risk
In evaluating a person's capacity to increase risk upon everybody else How comprehensive is this going to be? Because, obviously it's a farce from the absolute beginning. We ignore everyone who actually had it, gaining comprehensive T-cell immunity which curs pathogenic transmission for future strains to come, and instead make it purely symbolic practice to demonstrate that you would be ever so willing to perform whatever duty is demanded of you, like a good child, or a good soldier, even going so far as allowing the government to inject a product composed of synthetic substances into you, regardless of the capacity for it to be dangerous for you.
You can declare that it is almost completely free of risk, but you cannot say it is absolutely free of risk. This is an explicit action that you are taking. There is a difference between your current or unaltered state and your medically-treated state, and there is some risk incurred in making that transition. Comparing a direct action to a theoretical event which is not made one's destiny through demand or decision, but is an occurrence which takes place as a matter of happenstance as per the patterns of the natural world is an absurdity. There is no way to make up for indirection vs explicit, or the potential of an event being realized, particularly since these are not even options being offered to anyone, as there is no reasonable expectation that the state is offering you a bout of SARS-COV2 infection and illness. That is, though they are compared on the basis of theoretical risk, and though we could presuppose that the weight applied in such a comparison is unquestionably accurate, the comparison itself is inadmissible as it does not represent the transaction being proposed.
In fact, the nature of the transaction as contextualized by first effects is not even something which has been formalized, and is alone something which I doubt very much any universally credible consensus can reach. Again, one will say the special circumstances and particular risks supersede any such discussion, but I would say that you have sold away any standard for ascertaining what a special circumstance happens to be, and that the predisposition to operate per such a modality expresses one's antagonism and driven to profit one's own desires.
At the very least, the fact of there being any research whatsoever which shows that some people never encounter symptomatic disease fulfills the potential of someone not having disease as an option. The other possibility is that one adapts as per interaction with humans throughout a course of events whereby the prevalent strain becomes more common an dless responsible for disease. There would likely be very many persons who would come to enjoy this circumstance and they would have immunity to offer to the whole community.