Quote:
Originally Posted by Marie Monday
For most people who are lower risk it's too exaggerated to be fair. If I thought there was a realistic chance I'd kill my family by going back for Christmas I'd never have done it. I don't know the details of Karen's situation of course, but her health seems to be very fragile, and it's logical that you're more cautious.
@jwb's later comments, that's fair. What I'm saying about my own case is also basically a risk/cost analysis.
|
Karen has MS, is confined to bed, has difficulty breathing, can do nothing for herself and because of the breathing I've been advised by a doctor when she was in hospital earlier this year (at the height of the outbreak - colour me **** scared) that if she did contract it they could not risk putting her on a ventilator, in the same way as, when she was going for an operation to have her gall bladder removed, there were literally weeks of consultations to see if it was safe to put her under. The terrifying pronouncement: if we anaestethise her she may not come back out of it" is something you never want to hear.
So would she just die then? No answer. Luckily she got out okay, but now I have to be extra-extra careful, to the extent that the only real remaining member of my family I would want to see has agreed it would be too dangerous to take the risk to come up at Christmas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WWWP
I'm not anti-mask, I tend to err on the side of overly-cautious. But essentially it's correlation =/= causation.
I have family members I am not visiting because of the risk. I have family members I am visiting because of the lack of risk. It's not even about it being too exaggerated or anything regarding fairness, it's just a case by case basis that requires critical thinking.
"If you don't wear a mask you have blood on your hands" is the same as saying "if you use the wrong pronoun for someone you are transphobic."
|
How do you assess the risk? Anyone can get it, and just because they may be in a lower risk category medically (young, no underlying conditions etc) doesn't by any means imply they're safe and you can just go ahead in the knowledge they won't get it. That's really specious reasoning to me. If there's ANY chance - particularly with the vaccines now being rolled out, so it's not like this will go on forever - then surely the safe and sane thing to do is err on the side of caution and stay away?