I think your argument is well-written (aside from s/effects/affects/ in effects an extremely limited..) but just not convincing. I think this part goes way too

I think your argument is well-written (aside from s/effects/affects/ in effects an extremely limited..) but just not convincing. I think this part goes way too far presuming intent, really hurts your case without a qualifier. > Those advocating a policy of containment, and with it, totalitarian-style lockdown, are not doing so based upon scientific evidence, but rather upon superstition and tribalism. And to be so critical of "omission", the TLDR says nothing of air-to-air transmission while eating, like in a restaurant.