But don't you realize it's completely circular? You have the right to have me not have the right to infect you. But don't I also have the right to have you not have the right to have me not have the right to infect you? The point is. How much do we want to limit _individual_ freedom in order to achieve community/global safety. This is not a black/white question with a right/wrong answer. As much as you want it to be a cut-and-dried issue - "you're rights end where mine begin", etc. - it is not. It is trivial to disassemble any argument along those lines. At the end of the day - it's all about freedom vs safety. It's fine if you don't draw your line in the same place. But trying to imply/suggest that your position is somehow objectively more right/true is ridiculous.