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

“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's a vaccine. Even if all of us with a condition likely to cause complications could all go & self-isolate completely, they'd likely go insane in that time. Especially if elderly & not internet-savvy.

If mask-wearing doesn'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't think 'Most of the people who are dying have other conditions anyway' is a good one. We didn't usually choose to have them. Most of them are just old & wearing out but not ready to check out just yet.

I'm not suggesting Thad meant we don't have to worry about people dying of covid if they have other health conditions. I'm quite sure he didn't. But something went wrong with the reasoning there. I blame his regrettable postmodern tendencies.