I don’t understand this. If I get Covid, it will be probably be kidney failure I die from because of a pre-existing condition that is not life limiting otherwise. But why do cases like mine mean there is zero justification for minimising the spread of infection? https://twitter.com/thaddeusrussell/status/1300116251797196805">https://twitter.com/thaddeusr...

“The vulnerable should take responsibility for self-isolating” makes a certain kind of sense but how many can afford to do that? I’m not poor but I couldn’t afford to rent a place just for me for long. Also some people have young children & many are elderly & need help with care.

And it could be two years before there& #39;s a vaccine. Even if all of us with a condition likely to cause complications could all go & self-isolate completely, they& #39;d likely go insane in that time. Especially if elderly & not internet-savvy.

If mask-wearing doesn& #39;t actually help, that is a different matter, but if it would actually keep the infection rate low, is this not worth doing to enable elderly people & younger ones with health problems to remain able to live with their families who can go to work & school?

Anyway, while there can be good arguments against lockdowns & masking, I don& #39;t think & #39;Most of the people who are dying have other conditions anyway& #39; is a good one. We didn& #39;t usually choose to have them. Most of them are just old & wearing out but not ready to check out just yet.

I& #39;m not suggesting Thad meant we don& #39;t have to worry about people dying of covid if they have other health conditions. I& #39;m quite sure he didn& #39;t. But something went wrong with the reasoning there. I blame his regrettable postmodern tendencies. https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="😏" title="Grinsendes Gesicht" aria-label="Emoji: Grinsendes Gesicht">