It seems like the fundamental fallacy underpinning misguided mitigation strategies is prioritizing the elimination of the highest-risk interactions ever experienced by the lowest-risk (most privileged) people.
1/12

Through the lens of the well-off, dining with household members at a restaurant (indoors or out) or an occasional small social gathering among close friends really might seem to be among the riskiest activities for infection.
2/12

But identifying the greatest risks faced by the most protected parts of society is completely different from the question of which interactions are most epidemiologically relevant, or are placing people at the greatest risk of actual harm via death and serious illness.
3/12

Every take-out meal is prepared in an (often loud) kitchen by low-wage workers.

Food, necessities, and niceties are cut, prepared, packaged, shelved, shipped, and delivered by people with far more exposure than many of those debating whether youth sports are "safe".
4/12

Separate from privilege, age is an indicator for infection risk; by virtue of the vast differences in typical social needs and behaviors of humans of different ages, some age groups—particularly young adults—really do play an outsize role in sustaining the epidemic.
5/12

But we should question public health approaches which expect various regulations to halt socialization among young adults, as we would a sailor whose plan to reach his destination involves getting the wind to blow the way he wants.
6/12

We would not have expected to control the AIDS epidemic with bans on sex (though many countries and US states did have longstanding bans, a legacy of prejudice), and indeed, stigmatization of gay sex was instead seen as a barrier to public health, by driving behavior underground.

It should come as no surprise that a pandemic response which has stigmatized social interaction (and yes, in many cases banned sex as well as conversation) has not stopped social interaction, but produced a populace which views public health efforts from a defensive posture.
8/12

We do know ways to reduce the risks of social interactions. For example, outdoor gatherings, even if they are loud, visible, fun, are safer than indoor ones.

Unfortunately, we have prioritized controlling and sanitizing what we see above giving people tools to reduce risk.
9/12

Unfortunately, we may do all this and still see a lot of death. Infectious agents do not come with a promise that they will only cause epidemics which can be controlled. The world is not fair, we tell children, and we should remember it. Our goal is to make it a lot less bad.10/

It seems then a rational and equitable response to the pandemic would aim to give people seeking social connections the knowledge and tools to make socialization safer, and people whose jobs and living situations place them at high risk resources to reduce their burden. 11/12

Instead our approach has been to hold young adults responsible for an epidemic of infectious disease, and focus our mitigation efforts on reducing the risk faced by the most privileged and lowest-risk members of society.
12/12