For relent history 1918: https://history.com/news/spanish-flu-pandemic-response-citie...
- Citizens caught in public without a mask or wearing it improperly were arrested, charged with “disturbing the peace” and fined $5.
- In his book, Jacobs says that the gauze masks city officials claimed were “99 percent proof against influenza” were in reality hardly effective at all. San Francisco’s relatively low infection rates in October were probably due to well-organized campaigns to quarantine all naval installations before the flu arrived, plus early efforts to close schools, ban social gatherings and close all places of “public amusement.”
- On November 21, a whistle blast signaled that San Franciscans could finally take off their masks and the San Francisco Chronicle described “sidewalks and runnels… strewn with the relics of a tortuous month.”
... Believing masks were what saved them the first time, businesses and theater owners fought back against public gathering orders. As a result, San Francisco ended up suffering some of the highest death rates from Spanish flu nationwide. The 2007 analysis found that if San Francisco had kept all of its anti-flu protections in place through the spring of 1919, it could have reduced deaths by 90 percent.
As to discrimination based on heath issues: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Mallon
if we want to keep travelling then we must explore ways to travel that don't endanger others. this will have a huge effect on public transport. but it is imaginable. ironically (for someone who doesn't like cars) this also means that car travel should increase as well.
and suddenly suburban sprawl looks like a good idea too.
If you never leave your house, you will never get covid (give or take, lets assume). If I am sick, and I never leave the house, no-one will ever get sick from me.
But why is your(others) right to go out more important than mine? People that don't want to get the virus can stay home as much as the sick person no? If people are so scared of people on the street having the virus, they can just stay home and protect themselves
And on the other extreme, and this is what I hear a lot, it comes from people that have 'good' homes. A room for everyone where they can be alone, a warm house, wifi and facebook/IG/Steam and are either working from home or getting some benefits for staying home (not all countries are giving checks to everyone, and some people really are screwed). Now if you compare this to the other side (and not even extreme a lot of people live like this) where there is one room for 3 kids, no wifi, 4 tv channels and a moldy old house that is freezing. It seems to me it is easy to say 'stay at home' when we live like 'kings' and don't think if that person doesn't go to work cleaning some stairs or whatnot, they will have no food at the end of the month.
You can apply this to travel I think, by saying some people really need to travel for work (wether airport or a subway), so why is non-covid people more important that covid-positive people?
Last time I checked, traveling by car very often endagers others, and far more than flying, even when considering covid.
https://www.asirt.org/safe-travel/road-safety-facts/
> Approximately 1.35 million people die in road crashes each year, on average 3,700 people lose their lives every day on the roads.
> An additional 20-50 million suffer non-fatal injuries, often resulting in long-term disabilities.
> More than half of all road traffic deaths occur among vulnerable road users—pedestrians, cyclists, and motorcyclists.
> Road traffic injuries are the leading cause of death among young people aged 5-29. Young adults aged 15-44 account for more than half of all road deaths.
>Road crashes are the single greatest annual cause of death of healthy U.S. citizens traveling abroad