Well before acceptable risk became a dirty word during the covid pandemic, we used to argue as a society as to how much risk in our daily life we are willing to tolerate.
Now zero is the only acceptable answer to many
Now zero is the only acceptable answer to many
Additionally, I’d wager most reasonable people are willing to accept the unavoidable risks of driving. However, many car collisions involve people taking risks that are not necessary to transport themselves from A to B (speeding, drinking, texting, failing to indicate turn). Breaking traffic laws aren’t crimes of necessity, or borne of poverty, it just people refusing to think about how their shitty actions effect others.
Society is completely complacent to bad driving behavior. The whole zero risk thing is a straw intended to shit down the conversation
Are these not already against the law? BY no means am I asking to repeal these sensible laws.
Also, I dunno what I'd wager any more. I used to think that people would not accept being forced to hand over personal medical information to enter a location to prevent a disease with an incredibly low deathrate for most of the population and with an incredibly low deathrate for the remainder of the population with a freely available drug, but everybody else seems to think this is normal.
Or like, after 9/11, I thought having your nudes photographed by the government to enter an airplane would be considered a gross violation of privacy, but now having a pornographic photoshoot / assault is considered totally normal at the airport.
It seems to me people are increasingly willing to trade freedom for 'security'.
I'm sure it sucks more for people with conditions that compromise their immune system or people who live with such conditions. And I wish more people would vaccinate and mask up like me so they don't have to worry about its spread. But its political now, so our most vulnerable suffer.
By the way you put it your 'not affected' is actually more strict than Oregon state (which is known for having had more severe lockdowns than others).
Shows you how far the definition of 'not affected' has come. If you had told us four years ago you needed to provide medical information to enter a store, most people would have rightly been horrified. Thankfully the united states is not there yet.
Because the next step for covid is to settle into endemic status. Influenza is instructive because it serves as an indicator of the level of risk society is willing to tolerate from a virus.
There's also the question of tax burden. Non-drivers receive almost none [1] of the benefits that road taxes, but in most of the US things like public transit are expected to be largely funded through fares and not taxes. Then there's the even murkier territory that roads in lower income areas are mostly used as thoroughfares by wealthier folks who don't live in these areas, and their through usage ends up putting a higher tax burden on the roads in these areas despite these lower income folks not actually accounting for most of the usage of their own roads.
I'm not going to talk about COVID at all.
[1]: There is indirect benefit here through the truck logistics network and probably meeting friends and family over interstates that makes this more murky.