So-called luminaries on questions of coronavirus science can be blinkered. For example nearly every time @d_spiegel appears in the press, he promotes an entirely individualised account of risk in which catching the virus is presented like a game of bingo in which you have a low

chance of catching the fatal dose. It is such sloppy thinking, and a poor account of risk too. I mean sure, I might not get it, but I also think of my parents feeling terrified every time they leave the house because they are more vulnerable. Or the same with an immunosuppressed

partner living in a place where lockdown simply isn't happening at the peak. If your starting point for a view of risk is a grim accountancy in which "resilience" or "security" (or whatever other jargon) is guaranteed by assuring people that their way of death isn't so common

and that they, individually, must live with that lottery, as long as you enforce social measures to keep the ways of death nice and spread out on the bingo card, so none of them appear too fatal (although of course eventually everyone's number is called) then you miss the major

point, which is about how we act to organise ourselves socially in ways that aren't just a consequence of some deep laissez-faire ideology. These really are questions we have to collectively answer - what does it mean to simply lock up older people for indefinite periods of time

and thus diminish their lives. And the same for people who are HIV+ or who are having chemo or whatever else puts you particularly "at risk." That sort of thinking cannot happen anywhere but between us all. But more than this, outside of the world of hyperspecialised rarified

and disciplined risk management studies, these are the sorts of questions lots of us tackle every day. They are questions like "what does it mean when the food on my table is contingent on, say, the endurance of slave labour" or "what sort of violence is staked on this logistics

monopoly?" or "why does my landlord take half of my wages?" or "in what way can I continue to live in a world that persistently steals from those who need most?" Yes, these are an order of question that are difficult, but my point is simply that most of us are involved in these

sorts of difficult social questions all the time. The idea that we have grand professors of risk, whose thoughts seem to run out at "you probably won't catch the lurgy" or "here is the likelyhood you won't catch the lurgy" is terrifying when what is actually staked is the

massive reorganisation of life for all sorts of people who are, frankly, mostly already silenced. (How many kids did you hear on the news talking about reopening schools? How many care home residents did you hear interviewed? How many people with severe comorbidities?) The fact

is that the bingo model of risk serves precisely what laissez-faire ideology always did: it is a fuck you to everyone else. You don't need to listen to the eminent professors to know that. Some of us - in fact many - have been crying out for ways to make life better for everyone.

Instead we get treated to the "it's probably safe for you to get back to work, and we won't mention that when you all do that some of you who are more vulnerable are really condemned to isolation for a long time, and no, we don't want to listen to what you think about that."

Meanwhile there is a massive global recession taking place. There will likely be large famines. Large sections of the global workforce are being laid off more quickly than ever before. The preponderance of service industries as a counterpart to tech is looking less likely.

There are booms in all sorts of protectionist nationalism. Global food production is still kind of fucked (I still don't understand much about global grain stockpiles other than that I know they have mainly been monopolised by China. In other news people should be worried about

the now two month old grain export ban in Kazakhstan that's barely been reported, or, say, the fact that COVID-19 is hitting Brazil and US which are big exporters of high intensity agricultural products.) Look, I'm just some schmuck. I get that these things aren't all connected

but I do think they are worthy of consideration if we're gonna talk risk. They are all social questions of significantly more import than @d_spiegel effective pill-pushing of safety to get people back to work. The world is changed, and we can think how to remake it (or not.)

and apols to @d_spiegel who I have picked on here. I just heard his tawdry opinions once to often in the last few weeks. Could have chosen any of the modellers, and I'm just thankful I haven't had the misfortune to hear the Behavioural Economists, who really are fucking evil.