Thanks. Appreciate your interpretation.
May I just add that real stats may not be any more helpful?
Let me start by apologizing. I should have written that response in a less antagonistic way.
You wrote an argument based off of false assumptions, and concluded by insinuating even though your argument proves that there are a substantial amount of people who should be free to do as they wish (with some care) because of the low risk involved, "rational" thought will never be applied because some people will never be satisfied. This is how I understood what you wrote. That conclusion would be fair had the argument used real facts and not made up assumptions. Real stats and facts matter. They are how we make decisions about every aspect of our lives. That doesn't mean that we always interpret the facts correctly, or that we always make the right decisions, but they most definitely matter.
The vast majority of time may not cause damage. What about the number of times drunk people drive (When leaving A how often do they not make it to B)
You said they probably hit someone 100% of the time. Now we're moving the goalposts to they don't get to their destinations, which also doesn't happen the vast majority of the time. Replacing false assumptions with more false assumptions doesn't help the argument.
I agree. I have no clue why NY banned this. Was just saying this to amplify the argument.
Sorry, I don't understand this. You used a false premise you agree isn't truthful to amplify an argument based on false assumptions.
But if that could be done do you think it wouldn't help?
If what could be done? If someone tests negative, is asymptomatic, and is careful about the contact he has with others, he should be able to move about freely? How is this any different from the reality on the ground? As long as social distancing and masks are used (ie. careful about the contact), people can do most anything. The fact of the matter is, people are not being careful. If you need proof, look at any news site, right, left, or center, and look at the pictures of hundreds of thousands of people not social distancing or wearing masks. That's where the argument really begins: at what point is it the government's job to ensure that those opportunities for spreading infection are limited by closing things down? And that is where the drunk driving analogies come into play.