LuckyR

Oh, you don't need to convince me, that's why I put "version" in quotes. I'm referring to the attitudes of the same "delusional" folks you referenced (though I'd have used a different descriptor). I'm just pointing out that exact "delusional" or mistaken thought process is exactly why the Covid experience is not analogous to the likely human response to an extraterrestrial invasion of Earth, which was the subject (not the Covid experience).

It points out that it is reasonable and predictable for large corporations with legal liability (commonly unrelated to scientific logic) and subject to the marketplace (governed by social trends, also completely unrelated to scientific fact) to protect their corporation's financial position from such economic threats, regardless of the actual real health threat to their customers. Perhaps too fine a point for many, but not unusual in the Real World.

Don't overreact, I already acknowledged that the recall is predictable and reasonable.

Well my original comment was about an extra terrestrial invasion, not Covid. Personally I don't see those two as being particularly analogous as pertains to the human response. Especially since one is a "version" of the annual flu (which the majority of humans ignore) and the other would be an unprecedented event of global apocalyptic proportions.

Yes, imagine a soil bacterium contacting one's clothing or washing machine. Sounds dangerous and obviously should be avoided at all costs.

I stipulated that there was disagreement on Covid policy (vaccines, origins, government overreach, masking, lock downs etc). Yet these keep being mentioned as "evidence" of the population not desiring to address Covid. I saw that outlier "study" that made the rounds in the media that 25% of the UK public thought that Covid was a hoax, but there are numerous other polls that put that number in the UK as well under 5%. The 25% stat just doesn't track with my personal experience with knowing numerous individuals from various walks of life and demographics. Does one quarter of people you know believe that Covid NEVER HAPPENED, that's there's nothing to it? Of course as background, what is the current consensus on any topic you'd care to mention? In today's world 75/25 would be a consensus (of course 90/10 is closer to the mark, as mentioned).

Exactly, in addition to the reality that aromatherapy is designed to be inhaled and Woolite is poured into the washing machine (minimal to no exposure).

Sure but that bacterium is a Tier 1 agent ie it's method of exposure and lethality make it a known potential bioterrorism agent. Apples and oranges.

Not "plenty" by my use of the term. Over 90% of (those crazy) Americans and over 95% of Europeans didn't think that Covid was a hoax ("not real") when asked in 2023. Of course sizable minorities of folks think the virus was created in a lab, or that vaccines contained microchips or that the vaccines were secretly more dangerous than Big Pharma said they were etc. But that's wholely different from not wanting to fight and avoid the virus.

Well, while there were divisions about Covid POLICY, there was universal agreement that it was a bad thing to work against.

Yeah, I get it. It's mostly a legal and PR issue, I just mentioned it because this is a Science Forum.

The point is, if you can't want your spouse to get a 2,then you're too self absorbed to get married. Be single and do what you want all the time.

Exactly. That's why there won't be worldwide harmony until the Alien invasion.

Huh? Bacteria can live in Woolite? Also this bacteria is commonly found in soil. So are they going to recall soil (so immunocompromised folks can avoid it)?

Nope, it's basically what benefits the power structure = good. The "meek inheriting the earth" and the "afterlife" was invented when the rabble worked incredibly hard for truly subsistence reward. It was designed as crowd control.

Sounds like the OP is using "rights" to mean: legal rights, whereby whatever cr4p the legislature passes is the basis for one's "rights".

Ethically? Not at all. Healthful? Crops may contain micro and nanoplastics.

Genetics (of your children) is best addressed at the point of spouse selection, not afterwards.

Some motorcycle gear contains hard shell spine protection, if you're concerned.

Sure, most cultures have a flood myth, because floods are ubiquitous. But flooding requiring a boat to preserve the world's animal species (what I referenced and this thread is about) are impossible as I described.

This entire topic is ridiculous on it's face. The total possible sea rise if all ice on Earth melted is 70 feet. Mt Ararat is about 16,000 feet high.

Well it is true that everyone uses their personal moral code and the community ethical standard to help make decisions every single day. But that's like saying that since we all breathe oxygen every day that we all have an interest in atmospheric chemistry.

Still not clear what exactly you're driving at. Having a seizure episode is generally a big deal that makes the diagnosis obvious. If (somehow) someone who hasn't had one was told that they were at risk of a future seizure, since anti-seizure medication has significant downsides, would anyone take it? I'm not a neurologist, but I'm not aware that epilepsy has a reputation as a particularly difficult diagnosis to make. Ultimately, it's unclear to me what "problem" the app would "solve".

Do you mean detect the propensity for seizure activity before the first seizure?

We are in agreement on the relative difference between morals and ethics (though the appreciation of the difference is not universal). Having said that, please go into further detail on the "difference" you're referring to in your first paragraph.