34523trefds12
If you read the article, it advocates asynchronous conversation, and 'micro' updates.
In other words rather than forcing people to update at a specific time, that whilst convenient for you, is not convenient for all we should consider allowing people to do what they need to do and empower them to respond appropriately.
This is why OP mentioned that _your_ daily ritual is hurting them, because you are _forcing_ them to adhere to what works for you at _their_ expense.
It also goes both ways, but we cannot ask one to always considers us, and allow their needs to go unattended because it doesn't fit our narrative.
For example, a care home in London recently held a trip, all individuals in attendance were 'double jabbed', and were required to bring a negative PCR test. The attendees were not allowed to board the coach if they did not bring a negative PCR test. Attendees also had their temperatures taken before bording the coach and were also asked about how they felt, and encouraged not to come should they even feel like they have any symptom/s. The next day, a member of staff tests positive.
Simply being double jabbed isn't a solution, because the vaccine, fundamentally, doesn't work the way you think.
Whilst a jab may remove some affects of Covid, it does not stop transmission; Covid can and will be passed from those who are vaccinated to vulnerable people regardless. This results in a quandry where advocating for proof of a negative test can not actually be proof of a negative test, and being double jabbed does not stop an individual from catching Covid and stopping them from suffering.
Forcing people to be jabbed is unethical; boys have been reported to be 6x more likely to suffer vaccine-related myocarditis than ending up in hospital with Covid. What groups are deemed more precious? Are our young boys worth sacrificing, or should we sacrifice those who's age is greater than the average age of death?
Excluding people from society because they are not willing to take a drug which is still experimental; The CDC may have approved it, but in the UK has not its approval is temporary and that lasts one year:(https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4759).
It also quite frightening to hear power hungry individuals advocating agency over anothers body; I find your comment regarding Texas ironic given the current abortion issues present, but perhaps you agree with that removal as well.
When rights are removed, they do not come back. we still remove our shoes when travelling through airport security. It is important that we consider the our actions and implications for the long term, not just the current political cycle.