I'm not terribly big on the ideas of "civic duty" or "moral duty"... especially as they are usually meant. And as you couch it, I would somewhat agree with your take if it didn't go any farther than that. However, I think it does. Assuming an egoist version of morality, where the goal of morality is the happiest life you can live over the whole of life... I still think there are good reasons to adopt many of the more precautionary steps that are being publicly urged, even if you are in a low risk group.

For example. Am I better off, ultimately, living in a sicker community or not? True, I might be low risk and might not get seriously ill, but the impacts from those that do get seriously ill won't just be limited to them... economics, public expenditure, etc. all go down this path of being a net negative to my larger quality of life personally, even though I can wash my hands, etc. Add to this the likelihood that I will miss something in my precautions either through lack of knowledge or diligence, and not doing the most obvious sorts of things you might do if you were in a relatively high risk group can still lead to you becoming a vector in your own self-harm. This isn't even mentioning the fact that, while I'm not high risk, I know and live with people, people that I value, who are in high risk groups for serious complications to an infection.

Finally, while I don't have the right to other people's behavior in general, I do have the right to self-defense and so do others; and this right is largely delegated to government. Governments rightfully, if not legally perhaps, can demand some of these things in that context.... that's not to say they'd get it right... or even try to get it right... but that aspect is important.

So sitting here from my egoist perspective, it's in my better interest to minimize outside contact almost as much as if I were in a high risk group.

This feels like a knee jerk reaction formulated from a privileged perspective that believes that all beings’ lives are the same- or have the potential to be the same- as your own.

Do you owe it to the immunocompromised? As such an individual, I do not believe I am owed anything of any stripe by anybody.

However, as a human being and good citizen, I do believe I owe it to those in my community to do my best to ensure we have a safe, healthy, and thriving community. Rampantly- or willingly to use less charged verbiage- spreading a novel virus that is extremely deadly to certain segments or demographics of my community seems antithetical to that.

As a contra argument, I am capable of reliably and safely operating a vehicle at 95 mph- why should I be expected to observe speed limit laws that are intended to protect those that cannot? Does that make the law abiding drivers narcissistic?

Lastly, have you considered the impact on community services that widespread disablement of the workforce due to illness could have?

It may very well touch your life in a big way.

Edit: grammar.

> I do believe I owe it to those in my community to do my best to ensure we have a safe, healthy, and thriving community

This is a collectivist morality that not everyone shares. I would argue that American culture is fairly anti-collectivist (at least as I've observed today)

I, however, agree with the general sentiment that others' welfare may be in the individual best interest so maybe that's the avenue to persuade individualist.

> Do we also owe it to the immunocompromised?

Yes? For example, get your vaccines so those who cannot get them have herd immunity.

Ah so people should have free will taken away.

I thought people were advocating for responsible behavior, not enforcement.

Yes. That happens routinely, usually but not always, if society deems your free will is a threat to it.

I think most frequently the society restricts the freewilled acts _upon_ another person. I'm not sure I agree that going out in public is an act upon another person. They are free to touch door knobs or not. They are free to associate or not in public places.

Obviously I shouldnt be allowed to sneeze on someone (how this is defined is unclear) or to enter their private space w/o permission...

This is a bit analogous to the right to photograph/film in public.

I can choose to drive at 100mph in the wrong lane of traffic. This is not impinging on anyone else's free will. They are free to not use that lane, to drive around me, or to join me in going 100mph.

Photography in public is not a public health or safety issue and does not overwhelm hospitals with its effects.

The libertarian view point is that personal freedoms should not be limited, except in narrowest of scopes.

Examples of US policies that limit personal freedoms for the good of society without a direct infraction on someone else include: export controls, gun laws, mandatory auto insurance, income tax, state laws on vaccinations.

Doesn’t seem logical. Why protect someone with such a weak immune system so they can pass it on to the next generation? That makes society weaker.

Because some of us see our friends, family, and neighbors as more than a set of genes to pass on to the next generation.

And if those friends, family, and neighbors are clogging up a strained medical system that could even cause harm to us when we require such services for our own well being.

Because humans are more than their immune systems - I'd argue the Salk made society far stronger than a society requiring polio immunity as a precondition to live

Unfortunately all humans are born with weak immune systems, and sadly babies aren't fully vaccinated until they are ~2 years old. We protect them, because they eventually become our society. That pesky "future generations" concept.

You see, our immune system is built up over time with exposure to viruses, and inoculations. Then as we age, as our health decreases, our immune system gets worse again.

Personally, as I make my way through middle age, I hope that when I do reach my golden years I'm met with a little bit more compassion than "who cares about you, you're old and useless."

Funny enough, I know someone who has an auto immune system disorder, and recently found out this person is a lead figure in setting up Covid-19 response systems for major healthcare systems in the US.

How would you feel if I identified some quality that you have and decided you were not worth protecting because of the result it has on society?

This attitude is one step away from eugenics. You know who was a big proponent? I'll let you look it up.

Also large swaths of the elderly dying is unlikely to have much of an effect on strengthening our gene pool, no?

We also have our freedoms limited by:

- road rules - murder being a criminal offence - the concept of private property

We give up some personal liberties so that everyone has equal liberties including the liberty to enjoy their lives to the extent allowed for everyone.

Ok, we get it you do not have civic or moral compass. Noted.