[FormerFRLurker]

The original point was that comparing drunk driving to not wearing a mask was a grossly false analogy.

When drunk driving laws were first proposed they too were considered a violation of individual rights. And they would be if drunk driving only ever killed the drunk. But of course many drunk drivers also kill other people with their "lifestyle choice" when it would be a minor inconvenience for them to stay sober or call an Uber. Similarly, refusing to wear a mask is endangering others while wearing a mask is a minor inconvenience. In the 1905 Supreme Court case Jacobsen vs. Massachusetts, which was a dispute over compulsory vaccination, the majority opinion was that "the liberty secured by the Constitution to every person … does not import an absolute right in each person to be at all times and in all circumstances wholly freed from restraint … it was the duty of the constituted authorities primarily to keep in view the welfare, comfort and safety of the many, and not permit the interests of the many to be subordinated to the wishes or convenience of the few...it is equally true that in every well-ordered society charged with the duty of conserving the safety of its members the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand."

https://www.encyclopedia.com/education/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/landmark-public-health-laws-and-court-decisions

Without adequate testing we don't know who is "healthy non-infectious" and who isn't. If you looked at the FOX link I provided in my last post to you you would see that 20% of the asymptomatic folks tested positive. The science behind asymptomatic transmission is well-established.

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20200708/Half-of-coronavirus-disease-cases-could-be-caused-by-e28098silent-spreaderse28099.aspx

Sorry about the wall of text, but I wanted to give your arguments the consideration they deserved. If you have any links to support your claims feel free to share them.

[fr_freak]

"The researchers used coronavirus transmission models to determine the extent to which silent transmission drives the spread of the viral infection. They based the study on existing research, indicating that asymptomatic infections account for about 17.9 percent to 30.8 percent of all infections."

There's your article, and their "research". Their "study" was a model using data from other studies that concluded that there might be asymptomatic transmission, and then summarized by a "journalist". Wow. What could possibly go wrong.

You know, we've spent literally YEARS here on FR demonstrating how unreliable our current news media is, both through their misinterpretation of data and their willingness to lie, and yet there are still those of you who accept as gospel every ridiculous study that they report on, even when that study contradicts the one they reported on last week, and doesn't in any way match the real world data we're seeing all around us. If their modeling and reporting were ever correct, we would have seen 2 million dead by now.

Either way, it is YOUR choice to believe every half-baked study and live in fear. You have no business demanding that healthy people wear masks on the mere computer-modeled possibility that they might infect someone, any more than people with peanut allergies have the right to demand that all people wear masks in case there are peanut eaters among them.