Quantified_Risk.md 4.3 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 its first order effects, is not even something which has been formalized, or something for which any universally credible consensus can be reached. One will rebut in stating that special circumstances and particular risks supersede such discussions, but to claim as such is also to force your own conclusions as to what constitutes a special circumstance, and that the predisposition to operate per such a modality expresses antagonism and a drive to profit for one's own desires.
The truth is that, even early on, there was a lot of data used in studies demonstrating not just recovery, but that many people showed evidence of infection without symptoms. The idea that someone would not build immunity is already nonsense given that anyone avoids being killed by the virus, but is even more absurd when one notes that there are those who come to be infected by it and are able to mount a sufficient innate response such that no symptoms of illness are even experienced. That is a direct demonstration of immunity and, at the very least, it makes them formidable viral sink, which reduces viral load in a community.
Furthermore, it is necessary to have a significant group within the community who have conferred immunity as soon as possible, particularly once we learn that a pathogen is not extremely deadly, as this means we have a means of reaching a level of herd immunity earlier, which negates prolonging the period whereby the largest proportion of the community is most vulnerable and has the least immunity. This immunity is not merely in the sense of there being individuals who are able to stop the pathogen from spreading, through acting as the sink, but also in the sense that they are sharing particles with naive or vulnerable persons for which mounting an adaptive response is less desirable. In such a scenario, the individual with immunity will emit a range of particles, including exosomes, which allow for transmission of precisely the types of components conducive to inducindg an adaptive response