But the careless nature of dismissing the fatality rate of those over 60 or with co-morbidities is really unbelievable. Exactly the opposite. By pushing the na

But the careless nature of dismissing the fatality rate of those over 60 or with co-morbidities is really unbelievable. Exactly the opposite. By pushing the narrative of everybody being roughly equally vulnerable, we've failed to protect those who are most at risk. In a reasonable world, we would have locked down nursing homes immediately, with workers quarantined on site. (And paying them a ton of money in compensation). We also would have said that nobody over 60 or with health complications should be working outside of the home, even in essential businesses. Instead we panicked over young people going to beaches. So my parents, who are otherwise healthy and I expect to live for DECADES more should die now so you can go out and see your friends? Your parents, like mine, should take appropriate precautions. I'm not going to visit them or anyone else at elevated risk without a recent negative test, nor should they allow me to. But it's not reasonable to transitively extend the moral blame for infections back to patient zero. The level of selfishness of such a statement is just off the charts. Lockdowns cause massive harm to mental health, children's education, and people's livelihoods. And even physical health, as "elective" procedures like cancer screenings are cancelled. I could say that you're selfish for ignoring them, but instead I believe that we're all trying to do the best we can, and we have different conceptions of the costs and benefits of various actions. Or do you feel you can just unilaterally decide that it’s fine for others to die _unnecessarily_? Every day everyone does things that indirectly raise risks for other people. Do you quarantine yourself during every flu season? Do you ever take unnecessary car trips, thereby increasing the risk of other drivers and pedestrians suffering a fatal accident? If you want to argue that the current situation requires placing the entire country under house arrest indefinitely, you're going to have to show your work. Furthermore, the CDC just acknowledged it may be as high as 1/3 of those recovered with persistent issues "Persistent" as defined in that study is 2-3 weeks, which is not an unusual amount of time to recover from the flu. That’s worth not just saying indoors collectively for a short period to prevent? If I believed that a strict one month lockdown would eliminate the virus, I'd be all for it. I don't.