I understand that—and I accept that there genuinely is some risk of stigmatisation if messages seem to be aimed specifically at one group—but at the same time what is required is not a diminution of anybody's identity but a temporary abstention from high-risk activity.
The scenarios are not identical, but such a request seems readily comparable to (though, in fact, less extreme than) the way my late grandmother was kept in involuntary isolation and I was forced to suspend my work 'for the greater good'. I'm still quite bitter about both of these things (for various reasons that need not distract us here), but I'll stomach them if more or less all of us endure them more or less equally and there's no mucking about or special pleading.
In the case of Covid, there were unappealable orders with legal sanction against those who disobeyed; yet in this scenario we're not even able to offer medically accurate advice on risk prevention? I can only hope that rather more frank words are being had within the community.
The Great British public, for all their ignorance and obstinancy, are a pragmatic bunch; none of them wants a literal pox circulating in the wake of what they've just been through. I suspect that the average reaction to a judiciously worded warning would be closer to 'well, stands t'reason, dunnit?' than 'bloody dirty benders spreadin' their diseases again'—and you may be assured that I seldom overestimate the intelligence of the general public.
Edit: perhaps I got out of bed the wrong side. There's nothing wrong with your point at all
@Endlessly Amazed .
