Wow, the projection here is blatant! Well done. Also, "a good reason" may be so in the court of (some) public opinion, but not so much in the court of law. No m

Wow, the projection here is blatant! Well done. Also, "a good reason" may be so in the court of (some) public opinion, but not so much in the court of law. No matter how justified one's reasons are, if they lead to somebody's death it is a case for manslaughter, is it not? It was later drummed up by pretty much all masking enthusiasts that not wearing a mask is equal to murdering a grandma or two, and some "immunnocompromised" people on top. Surely, grand-scale messaging from position of high authority that "you don't need to wear a mask" will have a quantifiable number of associated deaths, and a very substantial one, under such assumption? Why the perpetrators of the message aren't put on trial for manslaughter? After all, the court may find that they had a "good reason" and acquit them of charges! I will have some basis to believe "public health" messaging, but not before such case is heard. What is the chance it will be? I know it will never happen.