> Not only is that impossible to know, what if you infected some people who were immnuno-compromised. Firstly, yes drunk driving is far more dangerous to the p

> Not only is that impossible to know, what if you infected some people who were immnuno-compromised. Firstly, yes drunk driving is far more dangerous to the public per incident than a Covid infectious positive case. This is glaringly obvious. Secondly, you don't need to be immuno-compromised to be killed by a car. I.e. that's a small section of the population. Digressing: There are many things in society where the risk of injury exists where it probably isn't a good idea to punish the person causing injury. One problem with drunk driving is that it is illegal. It's not just illegal to kill someone while driving drunk. So no injury is even required. Yet, being near others in a grocery store with a cloth mask (that does practically nothing) isn't nearly as dangerous and shouldn't be treated as such. So you're making a point about injury where the law starts way before that, risk of injury. But everything has risk. Playing baseball is risky of the off chance of the ball hitting someone in the head. Less risky, but could kill someone, say someone who was skull-compromised like an infant. Do you want to outlaw baseball games? That's an obvious "way on the other side of the spectrum" example. Where do you draw the line? And clearly, drunk driving (driving not even being a right) is MUCH more dangerous than possibly infecting someone with a virus that kills, to be honest, a minority of those infected. There are other viruses for example that is also transmitted in the same way, kills somewhat less frequently though like the flu. Do you propose (like drunk driving) that not wearing a mask in public period should be illegal? Because you never know if you're interacting with someone who is immuno-compromised.