I've been thinking a lot about "How to Have Promiscuity in an Epidemic." Public health interventions need to be about actual people, and how actual people behave, and what actual people can and can't bear. https://twitter.com/prisonculture/status/1260603093475110913

We will need to find ways to think about safer socializing (and safer fun!) *before* it seems appropriate to everyone to raise those questions.

There will be some who bear the burden of social stigmatization because they will seek pleasure and connection before it is safer (it is never fully safe).

Gay people of all races (including "selfish" white gay men), sex workers, people of color, poor people, etc typically become the targets of anger and in some cases police violence/the carceral state in these situations, as we've already seen in South Korea and New York City.

If we actually care about what we're trying to protect with social distancing - life, in its fullest sense, not mere survival - we will need to tolerate differential risk assessments and work to give people as much reliable information as possible to make those assessments.

This should be accompanied by making loud and forceful political demands for better behavior from politicians, who have wasted many of the opportunities gained by the gorgeous act of shared solidarity and sacrifice of the last two months.

We will need to protect and destigmatize more vulnerable populations that make risk assessments that might be different from what each of us believes is right and best.

We are all acting in contexts where we know some things (inside + air circulation/length of exposure/degree of viral shedding heavily affect transmission) and not others (significance and to some extent existence of other forms of transmission).

Let us imagine - as broadly and inventively as we can! - how to get as close to each other as possible, even if we cannot be as close as we might like.