A National Institutes of Health study puts the incidence of peanut allergy at about 1% of the population. (That's not to say 1% of people will die from peanut exposure.) But, when you've got 158 million enplaned passengers annually, 1% is a big number.
I know I'm gonna get excoriated for this but...
Pretty much nothing else in our society works that way except maybe ADA compliance. Taking fairly drastic measures to accommodate 1% of the population is not practical. What percentage of the population has heart disease? Prone to deep leg thrombosis? Or thousands of other issues that put people at a higher risk of danger on an airplane?
This is an astoundingly dumb argument.
Please explain to me what particular, everyday actions I might take that would cause problems for others
with those conditions.
Peanut allergies can be triggered by the actions of others
, which is why we restrict everyone for the benefit of those suffering from them. It's not clear to me, however, how my eating a bacon cheeseburger will give someone else a heart attack.
I understand what you're saying. To be more clear, my analogy was not meant to say that those are similar in the sense of others being able to cause harm, the analogy was simply that our society in general rarely takes significant action to protect an extremely small group of people. As I said in my post, 40,000 people die in the US in car accidents each year. That is an astoundingly large number yet no one is calling for an end to automobiles. On the other hand, how many people have died from being exposed to peanut dust on an airplane? Ever? I did a Google search and I can't find even one. Logically, I would say that our society should ban personal vehicles, at least in populated areas. Can you imagine if we saved 40,000 American lives every year? Do we really need our cars?
I know you will probably say that this analogy is not fair... but I'm only making the point that it is a very unusual situation where huge amounts of media attention have somehow created the illusion that this is a serious societal issue.
And with regard to your other posts, just because someone is participating in discourse and weighs on the other side of the issue than you, that doesn't make them a bad person. Everything is a slippery slope and there's nothing wrong with healthy debate. If you didn't see my post earlier in the thread, I was in paid F on DL ordering crabcakes for dinner when a passenger claimed a shellfish allergy. Pilot decided that half of F would not get dinner. I suppose you would say "boo hoo, so you had empty tummies, that's better than anaphylactic shock and death." But, again, where do you draw the line. It's a fair discussion to have. By the way, the shellfish allergy ordered the chicken and did not share it with the half of F that went hungry.