"drag her"pic.twitter.com/Fv9V4nINxJ
Show this thread
-
Those exceptions were made because it was a longstanding problem, where risk could be accurately studied and estimated, and deemed to be sufficiently low. But the risk in this situation is not well understood and could be orders of magnitude higher.
We do this all the time across contexts with variable risk. Immunocompromised children who can't receive vaccines present a community risk of serious illness and death, but accommodations are made. In fact, *all* infants & toddlers are generally permitted to not wear masks.
-
-
For a temporary problem like this with poorly understood risk, I think it should be the freedom of a non-essential business to decide who it does business with. I guess we just disagree on this.
-
I don't know if I would begrudge an individual business for deciding not to admit medically compromised adults and young children who can't wear masks, but I don't think it's especially unreasonable for those people to expect to not be indefinitely shunned from public life.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.