No, but that’s not what happened here.

Just stop.

Why "no"? What logic or principle is your position based on?

Based on the obvious principle that forcing someone to take what they consider too many precautions is radically different from forcing them to take not enough precautions. The former leads to annoyance and the latter leads to death. I'm so exhausted with the trolls who pretend they can't fathom the difference. At least learn how to make an argument that makes some kind of logical sense. Why am I even responding to this.

> Based on the obvious principle that forcing someone to take what they consider too many precautions is radically different from forcing them to take not enough precautions.

What if the professor demanded his students wear a specific kind of mask, like an N95? What if he required his students to take rapid tests before class? Where do you draw the line?

If an elderly person with comorbidities -- the highest risk individual in this pandemic by far -- wants to work in an environment where he will be exposed to many other people, which is inherently risky regardless of vaccination and masking (because neither offers 100% protection), he should find an employer whose rules are satisfactory to him, not impose rules that are contrary to his employer's.

I might agree if you were talking about a worker at a restaurant requesting patrons take more precautions than the restaurant's ownership required. But a tenured professor is not simply an employee. His status is more like an airline captain while in control of a plane. It's his classroom and he can require them to do pretty much anything he wants.

Classism at its finest. 88 year-old diabetic tenured university professor can demand whatever he wants but a poor, overweight waitress who lives with and cares for an immunocompromised relative can't.

No, classism would be: The waitress should just quit or be fired if she doesn't feel safe at her job.