Derek Cohen (in Perth, Australia)
Well I don't understand, you admit that smoking is still a personal choice as you admit it currently exists in many countries all over the world, even if "increasingly" its being mitigated. So my example is still valid.

Al, tolerance is desirable for anything ... as long as that activity does not impact negatively on another.

To consider that only one's views and interests are important, and to disregard those of others - an inflated sense of their own importance, in other words - is the very essence of narcissism.

But, if I must, then what about drinking...surely drinking is a personal choice, yet it can have severe health outcomes too.

Drinking has its problems, but unlike smoking, it does not have a direct impact on others. That is, by drinking (in moderation), you cannot make another drunk. Drinking becomes alcoholism when a line is crossed. Even at this level, unless it impacts on others, every person is entitled to kill themselves. The thing is that one does not just damage one's body in isolation - we interact with others all the time, as husbands or wives, parents, siblings, children, colleagues, friends ...

Anyway, I'm reminded by the Ben Franklin quote:

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

This is waay out of context. These words appear in a letter widely presumed to be written by Franklin in 1755 on behalf of the Pennsylvania Assembly to the colonial governor. The letter wasn’t about liberty but about taxes and the ability to “raise money for defense against French and Indian attacks".

I realize covid is a serious threat, but so are loosing our right to live our lives to our lawful standards of conduct...not of the non legislative decrees of government and the "new" priests of science (ie scientific experts). However, I admit that wearing a mask helps to mitigate the spread and not wearing a mask may pose a risk to others - but the effectiveness of said mask wearing is still being debated.

You are over-reaching, over-generalising to justify your views.

And as far as the threat of covid, its skewed so much to those over 80 and with existing health problems that some argue the overall blanket lockdowns, shutdowns seems by many to be overreaction....a hammer solution when a nuanced one is the right choice. Secondly, shutdowns/lockdowns are having a cost in lives too...increased suicides, job losses, increased poverty, put off optional health care for other diseases,...the list goes on.

And in the US we spent over $2 Trillion on the first covid relief, yet we only spend $158 bill last year for cancer ...where over 600,000 people die each year. Right now we stand at 350,000 covid dead. Money doesn't compare for the 600k cancer dead and their survivors does it. It seems to me, this is the new crisis of the moment, and ignores the really greater crises. Public opinion is a fickle thing I guess.

So on the face of it, you are much more likely to die from cancer this year than covid. And much of those cancers come from "life style" choices. Its estimated up to 50% could have been prevented. But for covid we meekly accept mandatory lockdowns/shutdowns and mask/hand washing for the "greater good".

Without meaning to minimise the terribleness of cancer, it is not contagious, and does not have the potential to spread and overwhelm the world. Covid has the power to shut everything down ... for a long, long time.

Doesn't seem a greater good to me.

Wake up and look around you. Open your eyes.

Good luck.

The only thing we agree on.

Regards from Perth

Derek