12 ms·

One of the main ways I've found out of this is to just accept that taking certain calculated risks is worthwhile. At the very beginning of lockdown, we decided

One of the main ways I've found out of this is to just accept that taking certain calculated risks is worthwhile. At the very beginning of lockdown, we decided that seeing or next door neighbors was acceptable. That was helpful. In early July, we decided seeing our closest friends was acceptable. We started going to a teeny tiny farmers market once a week just to see other people. Basically, I think it's important to remember that we are all human, and humans need other humans.

CincinnatiMan 6y ago
Yeah, it's important to balance the risk of catching COVID with the benefit of living a little more "normally" such as going into a store every now and then rather than doing pickup literally 100% of the time.
- Fargren 6y ago
  I have an issue with this. I hear a lot of this argument, that we should "accept a certain risk of catching COVID". But that risk is not what keeps me from going out, I'm personally willing to catch it. What keeps me home is the risk that I might be unwittingly spreading the disease. It seems really irresponsible of me (and of other people) to go out just because I'm feeling bad and seeing friends will make feel less bad. I still do it, but I feel guilty about it and I feel really judgemental of other people doing it. And I don't like being judgy, so I bottle it up with people I'm not extremely close to, but that's not conducive to great conversations.
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    >What keeps me home is the risk that I might be unwittingly spreading the disease. We did this before this most recent coronavirus also. What is important is the cost/benefit comparison, including mental health.
  - ksdale 6y ago
    I work in the family business, and my mom is older and absolutely crucial to the business (and therefore to the financial health of both her and our households), so most of our decisions are based around preventing her from getting sick, though my wife and I are personally not particularly worried about us or our kids catching it. My wife has had multiple friends with similarly aged children try to convince her that it's not dangerous for her or the kids when she refuses play-dates, and no matter how many times we tell them that it's not us we're worried about, they still frame it in those terms.
  - ISL 6y ago
    The challenge, going forward: If we cannot get our government to help us tackle the pandemic in an effective fashion, we are increasingly forced to contemplate questions like, "well, if this goes on forever, how do we adapt to preserve the other important things in life?" This epidemic can still be won, but it takes effective and coordinated leadership to do so. When our government's response mirrors the reality of the situation, rather than proclaiming that we are doing a sufficient job, and nurtures a united approach to mitigation, we will start winning. Case rates are falling slowly -- we are on the cusp of improving the situation substantially if we can get our act together further. When we start to win, winning gets easier. Such is the nature of confronting an exponential adversary.
    - war1025 6y ago
      > If we cannot get our government to help us We are the government. There is no magical "them" out there.
      - ISL 6y ago
        Absolutely agreed. The fact that our country is failing is our responsibility. There are multiple timescales involved to effect change. No matter how hard we push, the government we have three minutes from now will be almost the same as the one we have at this moment. At present, I have largely given up hope that the present administration or the present configuration of Congress will take responsibilities seriously. Thus, the minimum timescale for meaningful change is months. Working within that framework, one can imagine an environment in which our federal government cannot provide an improved mitigation strategy until January at the earliest.
  - sgtnoodle 6y ago
    Risk is best thought of in terms of expected value rather than probability alone. There's a non-zero but low probability of you spreading a virus you don't know you have as long as you're following good practices, and the severity of doing so seems relatively minor (99% of people you infect will have minor symptoms. Not to say that's ok, but it is normal for people to get sick occasionally). A low probability multiplied with a relatively minor severity gives you a very small number. On the other hand, if you're already finding yourself socially deprived, the probability of suffering severe effects from it is high, perhaps even approaching 1. The severity for some people could also be very bad: declining health, ruined relationships, perhaps even suicide. A high probability multiplied with a high severity gives you a very large number. It's hard to quantify and everyone is different. The point is, it's better for someone to go socialize when they need to rather than go insane, and it can be a perfectly reasonable decision.
    - Fargren 6y ago
      Yes, this is more or less exactly what I tell myself. I think it's a rational and logical way to look at this. I still feel very uneasy about it though. We don't know the long term effects of COVID. I worry that I could be contributing to something terrible. It's not just the direct chance of me getting someone sick, there's also the fact that each person that goes out sends the message that going out is fine. Which maybe it is? But it seem that if everyone did small sacrifices could help a lot, so it would be wrong not to personally do these sacrifices. In the prisoners' dilemma that we all find ourselves in, I really don't want to be the defector. And it bothers me that so many people are willing to be. I think it goes against my internal belief of what being a good person is.
      - orangecat 6y ago
        But it seem that if everyone did small sacrifices could help a lot Wearing a mask in a grocery store is a small sacrifice. Eliminating all physical proximity with other humans for months or years is very much not. I think it goes against my internal belief of what being a good person is. Those friends you're sometimes visiting, after which you beat yourself up for being selfish? Probably many of them are suffering quietly, and seeing you gives them the strength to get through the day.
  - orangecat 6y ago
    It seems really irresponsible of me (and of other people) to go out just because I'm feeling bad and seeing friends will make feel less bad. Before the pandemic, you and everyone else were constantly doing "unnecessary" things that put other people at risk. Every time you see other people you could be spreading any number of diseases that kill hundreds of thousands of people every year. Every time you take a car trip you're increasing the risk of a fatal accident to other drivers and pedestrians. COVID makes some activities more risky, and will shift some of them from "acceptable" to "unacceptable". But it doesn't mean that you're a bad person if you put more than zero weight on your mental health.
jawns 6y ago
Keep in mind that when you take these calculated risks, there are actually several types of risks involved. There's personal risk: What are the chances that I will suffer direct personal harm from this encounter? There's direct social risk: What are the chances that others involved in the encounter will suffer direct personal harm? There's direct propagation risk: What are the chances that the infectious virus further propagates because of this encounter, where it has the potential to cause substantially more harm to others outside of the encounter? And then there are indirect personal, social, and propagation risks: What are the chances that because of this encounter, the pandemic grows more severe or goes on longer than it otherwise would have, extending the length of time before we can truly return to normal life? I'm not saying that you, personally, don't factor all of these risks into your decision. But I think many people are only considering direct personal risk.
- just-juan-post 6y ago
  > There's direct social risk: What are the chances that others involved in the encounter will suffer direct personal harm? Why do people always assume that if someone is anti-mask or anti-lockdown that they didn't think about others before they made their decision? That they are selfish and dumb? Stop making that assumption. People do think it over. They do consider all points. And just because they come to a different conclusion than you doesn't make their conclusion invalid. > What are the chances that because of this encounter, the pandemic grows more severe or goes on longer than it otherwise would have, extending the length of time before we can truly return to normal life? ICUs are still fine. It is killing the elderly and those with co-morbidities. Any "spike" is barely a blip. The economy continues to crumble as days of social restrictions and lockdowns build up. You think we don't consider the lives of others with our decision. We do. You simply put too much weight on the perceived danger of this almost-at-this-point-not-a-pandemic-anymore. We simply don't agree on how dangerous it is. PS: If you want to talk direct social risk and safety then it's time to ban alcohol for the greater safety of society.
  - majormajor 6y ago
    > People do think it over. They do consider all points. And just because they come to a different conclusion than you doesn't make their conclusion invalid. ... > You simply put too much weight on the perceived danger of this almost-at-this-point-not-a-pandemic-anymore. We simply don't agree on how dangerous it is. Something to reflect on here is that (a) the person you're replying to didn't accuse anyone of not taking others into account and (b) you invalidate their conclusions in the same way you believe they invalidated yours. In my area, there were two points where ICUs got dangerously full. At the start, and then shortly after initial restrictions had been loosened. Fortunately, the spikes in case counts had been seen before, and restrictions were ramped up in response both times, and the hospitalization numbers flattened and then dropped. It certainly looks like a case of those restrictions being massively helpful, which you're discounting out of hand.
user_501238901 6y ago
That farmers market is probably around 1000x lower risk than meeting your neighbours or friends, btw. (assuming indoor meetings)
jonny_eh 6y ago
Calculating these risks, daily, is exhausting.
- war1025 6y ago
  Not really. They are categorical choices. Decide X is a "safe enough" activity. Done. I agree that trying to balance that every single day would be tiring, but broadly deciding "Our kids can play with the neighbors" is a one-time choice. As are the rest.
- clairity 6y ago
  you don't need to. just adhere to a simple rule: distance indoors, and when you can't, wear a mask. that takes care of the overwhelming majority of transmission risk. minutiae and the marginal are just not worth worrying about.
- capitol_ 6y ago
  This is one of the biggest reasons that I follow our governments recommendations on travel, working from home, masks and so on. There is people that have it as a full time job to calculate these risks and produce recommendations for the rest of us.
WalterSear 6y ago
Things have gotten riskier, but you have increased your exposure. There are certainly other factors involved: we know more about those risks and how to mitigate them, for instance. But, things have gotten riskier, not safer. From the discussions I have had with people around me , justifying the same 'calculated risks', it's clear that they aren't actually making rational decisions as much as rationalizing their decisions; bargaining with their emotions and then sliding into complacency.
- just-juan-post 6y ago
  > it's clear that they aren't actually making rational decisions as much as rationalizing their decisions Because one does not reach the same conclusion as you does not make their conclusion automatically irrational. A very large part of the online community is irrational indeed. Irrational about the true danger of the virus. I am not scared of the virus. I am scared of how scared people are of it. All children who died of Covid-19 were already seriously ill https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/all-children-who-died-of-covid-19-were-already-seriously-ill-jlxr8mkxq https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/all-children-who-died-of-... In Ireland: Median age of death is 84. 94% with underlying condition(s) https://www.hpsc.ie/a-z/respiratory/coronavirus/novelcoronavirus/casesinireland/epidemiologyofcovid-19inireland/COVID-19%20Daily%20epidemiology%20report%20(NPHET)%20v1.0_20200825%20-%20website.pdf https://www.hpsc.ie/a-z/respiratory/coronavirus/novelcoronav... 54% of San Francisco storefronts have closed https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Half-of-all-San-Francisco-storefronts-have-closed-15513726.php https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Half-of-all-San-Fran... The lockdowns and doom seem 1000x more irrational to me.
  - longerthoughts 6y ago
    > Because one does not reach the same conclusion as you does not make their conclusion automatically irrational. > A very large part of the online community is irrational indeed. Irrational about the true danger of the virus. Pick one. It’s hard to be persuasive when you hold your critics to a higher standard than you hold yourself.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
just-juan-post 6y ago
Excessive fear of the virus is throwing everyone's calculations off by magnitudes.
tqi 6y ago
I think it's also important to have empathy and understand that people will have different risk estimations, based on their own personal experience. Too often our default is to judge everyone who is more conservative than ourselves as overly paranoid and everyone less conservative than ourselves as overly cavalier.
dkarl 6y ago
I agree completely. Our local authority said that successful distancing means cutting interactions that can spread the virus by 90%. My wife and I decided we would be happy cutting back 95% personally, and that was easy to accomplish by the basic changes: no movies, no live events (plays, concerts, sports,) no parties, no bars, no restaurants (we've had a couple, literally two, patio meals,) groceries mostly delivered, precautions in public spaces (masks, distancing.) With all those changes, we meet the target pretty handily, so we don't worry much about our interactions with close friends. We default to seeing people outside with decent distance, but we don't sweat it if a friend comes over without a mask and asks to come in, or if they sit a little closer than expected. It's not like a competition where grinding out the hard last few percent is going to make the difference between winning and losing. It's more important to stay sane and help our friends stay sane so we can keep this up as long as necessary.
rkagerer 6y ago
I've noticed those with a stronger craving for social interaction having a much harder time coping during this pandemic. They tend to do like you and rationalize exceptions and reprieves toward more normal behavior. I'm not criticizing; I'm sympathetic and agree with you that we're all human and need to maintain some empathy for how tough this is. I'm just fascinated by the contrast. For my partner and I it hasn't been a big deal. I expect some of that is down to circumstance. We don't have kids, and already worked from home. While we still interact with people, it's far less than before and we maintain our distance. As volunteer firefighters / first responders we're particularly sensitive to the medical risks. We wear masks to go shopping and wash it all before it comes in the house (which is surely overkill, but not so onerous once you get used to it). We're fortunate that we adopted a dog a few months before this began and have a ton of great hiking terrain at our doorstep to go decompress. Of course we certainly haven't been unscathed - she was in finance and lost her job pretty early on when the market crash and pandemic-driven panic forced the company to downsize - but we're managing. I have some very social friends (same walk of life, no kids, etc) who keep trying to get in our face, and while I love them to bits it gets annoying at times. I can't say I envy the health authorities tasked with issuing guidance to the public and recommendations to legislators - they have to balance the need for containment - which can change rapidly depending on conditions on the ground - against the economic and social consequences (which as you alluded can leave some people feeling a sense of imprisonment). If you get a chance to speak with people who landed in intensive care for Covid or lost loved ones to the disease, it really drives home the cogency of the risk you're dealing with - just as does hearing from those countless numbers who've been impacted in non-medical yet severe ways from society's countermeasures.

CincinnatiMan 6y ago

Yeah, it's important to balance the risk of catching COVID with the benefit of living a little more "normally" such as going into a store every now and then rather than doing pickup literally 100% of the time.

Fargren 6y ago
I have an issue with this. I hear a lot of this argument, that we should "accept a certain risk of catching COVID". But that risk is not what keeps me from going out, I'm personally willing to catch it. What keeps me home is the risk that I might be unwittingly spreading the disease. It seems really irresponsible of me (and of other people) to go out just because I'm feeling bad and seeing friends will make feel less bad. I still do it, but I feel guilty about it and I feel really judgemental of other people doing it. And I don't like being judgy, so I bottle it up with people I'm not extremely close to, but that's not conducive to great conversations.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  >What keeps me home is the risk that I might be unwittingly spreading the disease. We did this before this most recent coronavirus also. What is important is the cost/benefit comparison, including mental health.
- ksdale 6y ago
  I work in the family business, and my mom is older and absolutely crucial to the business (and therefore to the financial health of both her and our households), so most of our decisions are based around preventing her from getting sick, though my wife and I are personally not particularly worried about us or our kids catching it. My wife has had multiple friends with similarly aged children try to convince her that it's not dangerous for her or the kids when she refuses play-dates, and no matter how many times we tell them that it's not us we're worried about, they still frame it in those terms.
- ISL 6y ago
  The challenge, going forward: If we cannot get our government to help us tackle the pandemic in an effective fashion, we are increasingly forced to contemplate questions like, "well, if this goes on forever, how do we adapt to preserve the other important things in life?" This epidemic can still be won, but it takes effective and coordinated leadership to do so. When our government's response mirrors the reality of the situation, rather than proclaiming that we are doing a sufficient job, and nurtures a united approach to mitigation, we will start winning. Case rates are falling slowly -- we are on the cusp of improving the situation substantially if we can get our act together further. When we start to win, winning gets easier. Such is the nature of confronting an exponential adversary.
  - war1025 6y ago
    > If we cannot get our government to help us We are the government. There is no magical "them" out there.
    - ISL 6y ago
      Absolutely agreed. The fact that our country is failing is our responsibility. There are multiple timescales involved to effect change. No matter how hard we push, the government we have three minutes from now will be almost the same as the one we have at this moment. At present, I have largely given up hope that the present administration or the present configuration of Congress will take responsibilities seriously. Thus, the minimum timescale for meaningful change is months. Working within that framework, one can imagine an environment in which our federal government cannot provide an improved mitigation strategy until January at the earliest.
- sgtnoodle 6y ago
  Risk is best thought of in terms of expected value rather than probability alone. There's a non-zero but low probability of you spreading a virus you don't know you have as long as you're following good practices, and the severity of doing so seems relatively minor (99% of people you infect will have minor symptoms. Not to say that's ok, but it is normal for people to get sick occasionally). A low probability multiplied with a relatively minor severity gives you a very small number. On the other hand, if you're already finding yourself socially deprived, the probability of suffering severe effects from it is high, perhaps even approaching 1. The severity for some people could also be very bad: declining health, ruined relationships, perhaps even suicide. A high probability multiplied with a high severity gives you a very large number. It's hard to quantify and everyone is different. The point is, it's better for someone to go socialize when they need to rather than go insane, and it can be a perfectly reasonable decision.
  - Fargren 6y ago
    Yes, this is more or less exactly what I tell myself. I think it's a rational and logical way to look at this. I still feel very uneasy about it though. We don't know the long term effects of COVID. I worry that I could be contributing to something terrible. It's not just the direct chance of me getting someone sick, there's also the fact that each person that goes out sends the message that going out is fine. Which maybe it is? But it seem that if everyone did small sacrifices could help a lot, so it would be wrong not to personally do these sacrifices. In the prisoners' dilemma that we all find ourselves in, I really don't want to be the defector. And it bothers me that so many people are willing to be. I think it goes against my internal belief of what being a good person is.
    - orangecat 6y ago
      But it seem that if everyone did small sacrifices could help a lot Wearing a mask in a grocery store is a small sacrifice. Eliminating all physical proximity with other humans for months or years is very much not. I think it goes against my internal belief of what being a good person is. Those friends you're sometimes visiting, after which you beat yourself up for being selfish? Probably many of them are suffering quietly, and seeing you gives them the strength to get through the day.
- orangecat 6y ago
  It seems really irresponsible of me (and of other people) to go out just because I'm feeling bad and seeing friends will make feel less bad. Before the pandemic, you and everyone else were constantly doing "unnecessary" things that put other people at risk. Every time you see other people you could be spreading any number of diseases that kill hundreds of thousands of people every year. Every time you take a car trip you're increasing the risk of a fatal accident to other drivers and pedestrians. COVID makes some activities more risky, and will shift some of them from "acceptable" to "unacceptable". But it doesn't mean that you're a bad person if you put more than zero weight on your mental health.

jawns 6y ago

Keep in mind that when you take these calculated risks, there are actually several types of risks involved. There's personal risk: What are the chances that I will suffer direct personal harm from this encounter? There's direct social risk: What are the chances that others involved in the encounter will suffer direct personal harm? There's direct propagation risk: What are the chances that the infectious virus further propagates because of this encounter, where it has the potential to cause substantially more harm to others outside of the encounter? And then there are indirect personal, social, and propagation risks: What are the chances that because of this encounter, the pandemic grows more severe or goes on longer than it otherwise would have, extending the length of time before we can truly return to normal life? I'm not saying that you, personally, don't factor all of these risks into your decision. But I think many people are only considering direct personal risk.

just-juan-post 6y ago
> There's direct social risk: What are the chances that others involved in the encounter will suffer direct personal harm? Why do people always assume that if someone is anti-mask or anti-lockdown that they didn't think about others before they made their decision? That they are selfish and dumb? Stop making that assumption. People do think it over. They do consider all points. And just because they come to a different conclusion than you doesn't make their conclusion invalid. > What are the chances that because of this encounter, the pandemic grows more severe or goes on longer than it otherwise would have, extending the length of time before we can truly return to normal life? ICUs are still fine. It is killing the elderly and those with co-morbidities. Any "spike" is barely a blip. The economy continues to crumble as days of social restrictions and lockdowns build up. You think we don't consider the lives of others with our decision. We do. You simply put too much weight on the perceived danger of this almost-at-this-point-not-a-pandemic-anymore. We simply don't agree on how dangerous it is. PS: If you want to talk direct social risk and safety then it's time to ban alcohol for the greater safety of society.
- majormajor 6y ago
  > People do think it over. They do consider all points. And just because they come to a different conclusion than you doesn't make their conclusion invalid. ... > You simply put too much weight on the perceived danger of this almost-at-this-point-not-a-pandemic-anymore. We simply don't agree on how dangerous it is. Something to reflect on here is that (a) the person you're replying to didn't accuse anyone of not taking others into account and (b) you invalidate their conclusions in the same way you believe they invalidated yours. In my area, there were two points where ICUs got dangerously full. At the start, and then shortly after initial restrictions had been loosened. Fortunately, the spikes in case counts had been seen before, and restrictions were ramped up in response both times, and the hospitalization numbers flattened and then dropped. It certainly looks like a case of those restrictions being massively helpful, which you're discounting out of hand.

user_501238901 6y ago

That farmers market is probably around 1000x lower risk than meeting your neighbours or friends, btw. (assuming indoor meetings)

jonny_eh 6y ago

Calculating these risks, daily, is exhausting.

war1025 6y ago
Not really. They are categorical choices. Decide X is a "safe enough" activity. Done. I agree that trying to balance that every single day would be tiring, but broadly deciding "Our kids can play with the neighbors" is a one-time choice. As are the rest.
clairity 6y ago
you don't need to. just adhere to a simple rule: distance indoors, and when you can't, wear a mask. that takes care of the overwhelming majority of transmission risk. minutiae and the marginal are just not worth worrying about.
capitol_ 6y ago
This is one of the biggest reasons that I follow our governments recommendations on travel, working from home, masks and so on. There is people that have it as a full time job to calculate these risks and produce recommendations for the rest of us.

WalterSear 6y ago

Things have gotten riskier, but you have increased your exposure. There are certainly other factors involved: we know more about those risks and how to mitigate them, for instance. But, things have gotten riskier, not safer. From the discussions I have had with people around me , justifying the same 'calculated risks', it's clear that they aren't actually making rational decisions as much as rationalizing their decisions; bargaining with their emotions and then sliding into complacency.

just-juan-post 6y ago
> it's clear that they aren't actually making rational decisions as much as rationalizing their decisions Because one does not reach the same conclusion as you does not make their conclusion automatically irrational. A very large part of the online community is irrational indeed. Irrational about the true danger of the virus. I am not scared of the virus. I am scared of how scared people are of it. All children who died of Covid-19 were already seriously ill https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/all-children-who-died-of-covid-19-were-already-seriously-ill-jlxr8mkxq https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/all-children-who-died-of-... In Ireland: Median age of death is 84. 94% with underlying condition(s) https://www.hpsc.ie/a-z/respiratory/coronavirus/novelcoronavirus/casesinireland/epidemiologyofcovid-19inireland/COVID-19%20Daily%20epidemiology%20report%20(NPHET)%20v1.0_20200825%20-%20website.pdf https://www.hpsc.ie/a-z/respiratory/coronavirus/novelcoronav... 54% of San Francisco storefronts have closed https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Half-of-all-San-Francisco-storefronts-have-closed-15513726.php https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Half-of-all-San-Fran... The lockdowns and doom seem 1000x more irrational to me.
- longerthoughts 6y ago
  > Because one does not reach the same conclusion as you does not make their conclusion automatically irrational. > A very large part of the online community is irrational indeed. Irrational about the true danger of the virus. Pick one. It’s hard to be persuasive when you hold your critics to a higher standard than you hold yourself.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

just-juan-post 6y ago

Excessive fear of the virus is throwing everyone's calculations off by magnitudes.

tqi 6y ago

I think it's also important to have empathy and understand that people will have different risk estimations, based on their own personal experience. Too often our default is to judge everyone who is more conservative than ourselves as overly paranoid and everyone less conservative than ourselves as overly cavalier.

dkarl 6y ago

I agree completely. Our local authority said that successful distancing means cutting interactions that can spread the virus by 90%. My wife and I decided we would be happy cutting back 95% personally, and that was easy to accomplish by the basic changes: no movies, no live events (plays, concerts, sports,) no parties, no bars, no restaurants (we've had a couple, literally two, patio meals,) groceries mostly delivered, precautions in public spaces (masks, distancing.) With all those changes, we meet the target pretty handily, so we don't worry much about our interactions with close friends. We default to seeing people outside with decent distance, but we don't sweat it if a friend comes over without a mask and asks to come in, or if they sit a little closer than expected. It's not like a competition where grinding out the hard last few percent is going to make the difference between winning and losing. It's more important to stay sane and help our friends stay sane so we can keep this up as long as necessary.

rkagerer 6y ago

I've noticed those with a stronger craving for social interaction having a much harder time coping during this pandemic. They tend to do like you and rationalize exceptions and reprieves toward more normal behavior. I'm not criticizing; I'm sympathetic and agree with you that we're all human and need to maintain some empathy for how tough this is. I'm just fascinated by the contrast. For my partner and I it hasn't been a big deal. I expect some of that is down to circumstance. We don't have kids, and already worked from home. While we still interact with people, it's far less than before and we maintain our distance. As volunteer firefighters / first responders we're particularly sensitive to the medical risks. We wear masks to go shopping and wash it all before it comes in the house (which is surely overkill, but not so onerous once you get used to it). We're fortunate that we adopted a dog a few months before this began and have a ton of great hiking terrain at our doorstep to go decompress. Of course we certainly haven't been unscathed - she was in finance and lost her job pretty early on when the market crash and pandemic-driven panic forced the company to downsize - but we're managing. I have some very social friends (same walk of life, no kids, etc) who keep trying to get in our face, and while I love them to bits it gets annoying at times. I can't say I envy the health authorities tasked with issuing guidance to the public and recommendations to legislators - they have to balance the need for containment - which can change rapidly depending on conditions on the ground - against the economic and social consequences (which as you alluded can leave some people feeling a sense of imprisonment). If you get a chance to speak with people who landed in intensive care for Covid or lost loved ones to the disease, it really drives home the cogency of the risk you're dealing with - just as does hearing from those countless numbers who've been impacted in non-medical yet severe ways from society's countermeasures.