Or it could be because the grandparent post contains the common non-sequitur about "individual choice". That rhetoric is pointless in a discussion about public health and ruins a perfectly good comment. An infectious disease does not care what your individual choice is.
It's obviously not a non sequitur, it's the essential tradeoff we're making. We could weld every person into their home for the next month and eliminate Covid, but we don't do that because we're trading off public health maximalism vs individual freedoms. The entire point of the political process is to decide where that line is.
An infectious disease doesn't care about any of that, it doesn't care what your political process is or where you draw the line. It's not a trade off of public health maximalism vs individual freedoms, it never is that simple. Every decision you make there trades someone else's individual freedom by increasing their risk of contracting the disease. Please let's stop dancing around that and trying to play politics here.
The only fool proof solution that exists is to totally quarantine people, but the grandparent post already took that off the table, so even if we wanted to have that discussion there is simply nowhere left for it to go. See what I mean here? This rhetoric doesn't do anything besides shut down the conversation.
No I am not, please stop this. You're jumping to the other extreme and that's exactly why I think that type of rhetoric is not helpful. If you have something nuanced you'd like to say then I'd love to hear it.
Personally if I was somewhere where there was an HIV outbreak, and we didn't have adequate resources to test and protect against it, then I would say that abstaining from promiscuous sex and promoting that as a public health measure would be a perfectly reasonable thing to do. That would actually probably help the situation in areas of the world where the ongoing HIV epidemic is particularly bad, which by the way is still a real thing.
I fail to understand the down votes.