If you want to wear a mask out of fear and keep your distance, you can do that; you can also refrain from using public transport, visiting restaurants and hotels or the cinema, theater, concerts, nightclubs, parties, etc.: it is your own decision.
In the current Corona discussion about the mask requirement, the proponents are increasingly asserting non-medical reasons that rely on a moral concept of responsibility: according to this, it is a matter of responsibility not to infect others – and so the mask should be worn out of a pure sense of responsibility, out of consideration and respect for others. The “mask refusers” are considered to be ruthless egocentrics who put the collective health at risk and thus themselves become the basis of ever stricter state regulations in order to avert harm to the community. How about that?
It is no coincidence that recourse to non-medical arguments occurs precisely where the medical nonsense of wearing a mask is admitted. Because the viruses are much too small to be kept away from the mesh of the mask. The mask is therefore permeable to viruses – like the net of a football goal for flies, and causes a lack of oxygen in the blood and brain through rebreathing, which can lead to headaches and other impairments of healthy performance.
Then climate protection (CO2 reduction) or the fight against hatred could just as well be cited to justify the mask requirement, since the lack of oxygen in the brain erases all aggressiveness and makes the subjects docile yes-and-amen sayers. The appeal to non-medical arguments is more like an oath of disclosure that is to be whitewashed with a moral appeal to responsibility, consideration and respect. So let us now disregard all medical reasons for and against and just ask: is there individual responsibility for the infection of others?
The answer is clear and unequivocal: Yes! – Anyone who suffers from sexually transmitted diseases (gonorrhea, syphilis) or is HIV-positive should, if they know this, tell the other person who wants to have sex with them. This does not exclude that the general meeting takes place with mutual consent and with full awareness of the risk of infection – passion, infatuation, sex drive may be stronger and the consequences are borne solely by those involved who act on their own responsibility. Therefore, their behavior is not criminally relevant. It is the same where people act in ignorance. Only the conscious and deliberate concealment of the risk of infection is justifiable; and in this sense the individual bears the juridical responsibility for the infection of others.This may then lead to occupational disability in various trades – not only in prostitution, but also in gastronomy (hepatitis etc.) and other things.
In everyday life, too, it is undoubtedly part of the standard of civilized interpersonal behavior to point out one’s own infection to others and to recommend distance to them. But this, too, may not be adhered to and neglected – not only in the affective and family context. In the annual flu season everyone knows this and can prepare accordingly – or pursue normal life as usual.
Those who feel strong and healthy may trust their immune system or hope that an infection will strengthen their defenses. Last but not least are active vaccinations; and quite a few got their first flu after their first flu shot. In any case, doctors and health workers are forbidden to keep their distance from infected people: their duty is precisely to take on and endure their professional health risks from infectious diseases in order to be able to help the sick at all. And none of them would sue the sick person for having infected him: as a treated nursing case, he is released from all responsibility for the infection of his fellow human beings.
So the matter is not quite as simple as the reproach of the mask refusers. The person is only responsible for what depends on him. But every human being is unknowingly the carrier of countless viruses and bacteria that are exchanged in everyday intercourse and mostly remain inapparent, so they do not cause disease, but rather have an immune-boosting effect. All of this belongs to the unconscious and will-less side of human interaction and eludes any individual control, so it remains irrelevant to the concept of responsibility. Accusing healthy people of irresponsibility for the health of their fellow human beings because they do not wear a mask is therefore not an option; not even if they have a positive PCR test but remain asymptomatic. Because it says nothing about the infectiousness – which brings us back to the medical side.
Therefore: if you want to wear a mask out of fear and keep your distance, you can do that; you can then also forego using public transport, visit restaurants and hotels or cinema, theater, concerts, nightclubs, parties, etc. And if you see someone without a mask, you can take off and run away. Which, by the way, would show how little you trust the virus protection of the mask – and how nonsensical then wearing your own mask together with the allegations of so-called “mask refusers” is.
All others, however, are free to act as they please with their own responsibility and knowledge of the possible risk of infection: they will bear the consequences themselves – and they will not, if at all, infect anyone who does not think like them and who is free to do so. So where is the problem – if, according to all the statistical data available to us, neither a massive wave of hospitalizations nor an increased infection-fatality-rate is to be feared?
Because this – and not the PCR test – is the only valid criterion for the legitimacy of the corona measures, as was initially intended with the feared collapse of the health system. But the chaos of the measures that has broken out in the meantime shows all too clearly how every reasonable measure has been lost. In this way the country becomes a fool’s house, which is whirled around by whip-wielding ring directors: political competence looks different.