Stay away from people and be in your airconditioned and filtered house...

I think the underlying question has to do with when one person's actions affect another. We are all happy to say things like "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins",

But what about communicable diseases? Does your right to avoid vaccination end at the point where you increase my risk? Since vaccines, especially flu vaccines are far from 100% effective it is not sufficient that I vaccinate myself. Having the people around me also vaccinated significantly lowers my personal risk.

When dealing with a flu as deadly as the 1918 variant (10-20% mortality) this is a troubling issue,

The impossible miracle of a completely objectivist society would quarantine the sick, wear masks and use a lot of soap and water.
A sizable portion of our present society, the ones who think open borders is a good thing, would blame Trump and riot.

I think the question contains a contradiction. It implies "society" has a responsibility to respond, which would be non-objectivist.
Each individual responds to the threat of flu. A pandemic just means more individuals are having to deal with flu at the same time.

I think you can take the "probably" out of there... Ha! The statistical probability that there will ever be an entirely objectivist society is less likely than either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton gaining support from 100% of the U.S. Population.

Does an "Objectivist Society" actually "respond" to things? In other words, Objectivism is all about the individual, so each objectivist would do what he deems necessary to protect himself and his family/friends. Interesting topic.

profchuck,

don't you know that an objectivist society does not exist and probably never will at the rate or growth of stupidity taking over the country. so why do you think such an action is even possible?

I don't have a clue.............