BTW it seems that you missed the point entirely, as it is indeed related to "living in a community". The point is this: It makes absolutely NO scientific/medical sense to classify one portion of society as "safe", and another as "dangerous", based on an assumed level of covid "health threat", when that supposed health threat has MASSIVE overlap between the two groups. AFAICT, a fit healthy 20 year old without a covid jab is no more threat to anyone than a jabbed-up overweight 80 year old, so WHY on earth would anyone use some meaningless binary classification system based on jabbed status that labels the 20 yr old as "reckless and dangerous" and the 80 yr old as "safe", AND base their interactions with these people on such utter nonsense? Some people in one "group" simply cannot reduce their absolute risk to below that of some in the other group, no matter what number booster they're up to, so the whole notion of this generalised and over-simplified "safe vs dangerous" people is fundamentally flawed. It creates unnecessary fear and conflict, and IGNORES any ACTUAL health threat and specific risk that may exist. A person labelled "dangerous" may indeed be less of a transmission risk than one labelled "safe". I provided examples to explain this concept. They were not fanciful or impossible. IMO they will be rather common. Can you refute that this issue exists? How? Why?
I guess none of that matters when one is simply trying to divide and conquer, as per the current campaign. I suppose you've heard Ms Lambie's latest ramblings on the topic, trying to incite hatred, division and arguably violence, in the name of "health". Wow. Perhaps re-read what I wrote earlier with the concept of Absolute Risk (and AR Reduction) in mind.
