fon wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 11:47 pm
I'm sorry if you don't get it, only a subset of humanity grasps pure boolean logic , they are mostly linguists or programmers(like me ) or lawyers, I guess you skipped those lectures? Too bad, but good luck and very best wishes in whatever you do.
You said, "You may be more more likely to contract Covid-19 if you chose the unvaccinated room."
I simply asked why that may
be the case. A perfectly reasonable question.
As a law graduate (1st class), I'm used to basing my arguments on evidence. Assertions need to be based on more than just bluster. More than just because I said so
. Your bizarre post to jmc
being a case in point.
Hence the torrent of questions you patently find so tedious. (You know, you don't have to answer them.)
I understand boolean logic, and your point that a vaccinated room would be no less safe than an unvaccinated one.
I'm not contending that an unvaccinated room may
be the safer option. Obviously, it wouldn't.
My question was simply why a vaccinated room may be safer
if it has not yet been definitely established that the vaccine prevents transmission between people.
It's possible that I'm asking for evidence which has not yet been revealed. So the question itself is contentious.
In order to justify passports, the government needs to demonstrate that it is taking proportionate action. But then you find yourself in the realm of protected characteristics. The question of proportionality becomes central.
Please, don't get personal on here with me, jmc, or anyone else. There is no reason to turn a civilized debate into a rancorous slanging match.
Even a programmer like yourself must possess some