> Now if you think your 'right' to put your own body at risk, you've failed to understand how contagious the virus is and how much you put others at risk by thi

> Now if you think your 'right' to put your own body at risk, you've failed to understand how contagious the virus is and how much you put others at risk by thinking you matter more. This will only prolong the quarantine, and this is why everyone is super concerned about the second wave and pandemic history repeating itself because some people are so arrogant and don't see their privilege compared to the at risk. I'm arguing that people who accept the risk upon themselves should be free to do what they want to do - and those who are afraid of the virus keep themselves "quarantined". If you are in quarantine, you are not being put at risk. Why do you think that some people's livelihoods are more important than others that you can justify locking them up in their homes to protect those others, who have elected upon themselves to live a life of fear? You are putting lives at risk by enforcing a lockdown. This is not a one-way street. Why is your justification any better than mine? I'm suggesting that far more people are going to die because of the lockdown and its secondary effects than the combined waves of COVID. The rational conclusion is that the cure is worse than the disease. The position of the lockdown should be reversed in order to spare the greater number of lives. "There are no solutions, only trade-offs." - Thomas Sowell.