Outbreak privacy debate

Parallel case (not today's prompt): A city is deciding whether to pass a law requiring every bicycle rider to wear a helmet, with a small fine for riders who do not. Some residents say the city has no business telling adults what to wear on their own heads. Should the helmet law pass?\n\nClaim: The city should pass the mandatory bicycle-helmet law, because the safety benefit to riders is large and the burden the law places on personal freedom is small.\n\nEvidence: Public-health studies of bicycle crashes consistently find that wearing a helmet sharply lowers the risk of a serious head injury. Emergency departments report that head trauma is the leading cause of death in bicycle crashes, and that helmeted riders are far less likely to suffer a severe brain injury than unhelmeted riders in a crash of the same speed. Cities and states that have adopted helmet laws have measured meaningful drops in bicycle head-injury rates after the law took effect, especially among younger riders. At the same time, a helmet is inexpensive, quick to put on, and does not stop anyone from riding where or when they want.\n\nReasoning: The evidence connects to the claim because a policy is worth adopting when it prevents a large, likely harm at a small cost. A serious head injury can cause permanent disability or death, and those costs fall not only on the rider but on families and on the hospitals and taxpayers who cover emergency care. The helmet law reduces that harm using a measure that is cheap and easy to follow, so the trade is a good one. The freedom objection is real, but it is limited: the law restricts one small choice, wearing a helmet, and leaves every other part of riding untouched. When a minor limit on personal choice buys a major reduction in preventable death and injury, the public-safety benefit outweighs the loss of freedom, so the law should pass.\n\n(Notice the moves to copy for your own exit ticket: the Claim takes one clear side, the Evidence gives specific facts instead of opinions, and the Reasoning explains WHY those facts support the claim and fairly names the strongest objection before answering it.)