The place of the rule of warning in the elimination of civil liability due to infectious diseases

According to the warning rule, anyone who warns others before carrying out harmful operations will be exempt from civil liability despite the necessary conditions. In case of communicable diseases(such as corona), public and government officials are usually warned, and patients with both non-patients and non-patients are advised to avoid contact with each other and not to enter public places. So one question is whether general(non-government) caution by the public is detrimental to civil liability. And given that the warning audience is often uninjured (non-sick) and causal (patient) and the transmission of the disease requires both actions to be taken according to the warning, what is the contribution of the injured party to the responsibility and the intersection of the "rule of action"? And where is the "warning rule" on this issue? If there is a conflict between performing the act according to the warning(for example, not entering the public environment) with other actions that are beneficial to the victim or deter him from harm, what is the obligation?In this article, according to the jurisprudential documents, the rule of warning is characterized by the activity of notarizing the revocation and the theory of the adequacy of the warning operation by everyone is accepted in the elimination of the guaranteed guarantee. The warranty loss(carrier of an infectious disease) where the injured party is unable to act in accordance with the warranty(due to conflict with other damages) and the injured party is unable to act in accordance with the rule of action.