Now you argue again as if there was, or could be a disaster. You've got to decide on this and I think you already did. An epic disaster, by its very nature, cannot be prevented by human influence. Otherwise it wouldn't be a disaster, catastrophe, you name it.

In the English language, an "epic disaster" just means a large disaster. We can certainly prevent disasters/catastrophes by proper preparation and appropriate actions in response to them. You can observe this very clearly in the amount of people that die in countries with good building codes, for example, versus in poorer countries, where natural disasters typically involve a much higher loss of life. But I am starting to get the impression you are something of a fatalist, which is a philosophy I am strongly opposed to.

How can you say you are using reasoning skills when you are expressing disdain at the same time?

Everyone is capable of using their reasoning skills while feeling emotions. Otherwise, most humans would not be able to think during much of their life, because they are generally always experiencing emotions. Emotions act as primary motivators for most human actions, so it would be silly to think a person can just suspend them entirely, nor would it be beneficial to do so.

But while emotions serve as useful motivators, it is important not to let them usurp your reasoning ability, which often people do. Just because a fact or conclusion is unpleasant, or shows that your previous reasoning is wrong, you should not let your emotions reject it. But people do this all the time, unfortunately. And this way of handling unpleasant truths, while it can be satisfying in the short term, is usually personally detrimental in the long term, because it leads to non-optimal future behavior.

So when I was very young, I decided that it was important to let my reasoning dominate over my emotions. I still experience emotions just like anyone else, including contempt for people who let their emotions overcome their logic, and those emotions still serve to motivate my strivings in life. But I strongly resist whenever my emotions attempt to overwhelm my reasoning. For the most part, it is really not that hard: with practice, I believe almost anyone who doesn't suffer from mental illness can learn to do this if they try hard enough.

But I don't think that neither you or other people whom happen to share my space are a threat to me.

I can't tell if you are joking or if you seriously believe this will always be the case under all conditions. But I am personally quite certain that if you ever walk into a building where people are dying painfully from a highly infectious disease, you will think otherwise at that point in time, and you will exit the room at your top speed. Unless you just don't care much about your life.

Those who want to work to form parallel communities could be effectively prevented from doing so because they would be breaking existing law.

Please send me the link to the law they will be violating.

Neither camp should therefore allow the other to pursue exclusively one-sided policies, because this would result in a two-class society.

So, you're against the idea that people can choose to live differently? And feel that everyone should live the same?

You can't solve this centrally for everyone.

I'm not doing that. You are. By demanding that a group cannot decide that they want to pursue their own strategy to maintain their health, you are the one trying to centrally decide the outcomes for everyone.