[BostonCard]

Sorry I missed this article earlier, but it is a good one by Julia Marcus, from HMS.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archiv...lp/611482/

The idea is that just as preaching abstinence to prevent transmission of HIV is unrealistic, keeping everyone in a quarantine indefinitely is also unrealistic.  Of course, at this point every state in the nation that instituted a lockdown is starting to lift it, so the idea that we would keep shelter-in-place orders going indefinitely is a bit of a red herring.  We are arguing about the pace of opening, not whether or not to open, which I think is the right framing for the debate.

To that end, I think Marcus' article is a good one.  She pushes harm reduction for COVID-19, the equivalent of "practice safe sex" but for a respiratory pandemic.

What does harm reduction look like for the coronavirus? First, policy makers and health experts can help the public differentiate between lower-risk and higher-risk activities; these authorities can also offer support for the lower-risk ones when sustained abstinence isn’t an option. Scientists still have a lot to learn about this new virus, but early epidemiological studies suggest that not all activities or settings confer an equal risk for coronavirus transmission. Enclosed and crowded settings, especially with prolonged and close contact, have the highest risk of transmission, while casual interaction in outdoor settings seems to be much lower risk. A sustainable anti-coronavirus strategy would still advise against house parties. But it could also involve redesigning outdoor and indoor spaces to reduce crowding, increase ventilation, and promote physical distancing, thereby allowing people to live their lives while mitigating—but not eliminating—risk.

Second, health experts can also acknowledge the contextual factors that affect both a person’s decisions and their risk of coronavirus transmission. Some people are seeking human contact outside of their households because of intense loneliness, anxiety, or a desire for pleasure. The decision to go for a run with a friend or gather in a park with extended family may be in conflict with current public-health guidance in some communities, but for some people, the low risk of coronavirus transmission in these settings may be outweighed by the health benefits of human connection, exercise, and being outdoors. We can also acknowledge that some people can’t comply with public-health guidance because of structural factors, including systemic racism, that render physical distancing a privilege. If we ignore this broader context, people of color will continue to bear the brunt of not only the pandemic itself, but also American society’s response to it.

Third, Americans can accept that, despite our best efforts, some people will choose to engage in higher-risk activities—and instead of shaming them, we can provide them with tools to reduce any potential harms. Want to see your grandkids? Still planning to have that party? Meet up outside. Don’t share food or drinks. Wear masks. Keep your hands clean. And stay home if you’re sick.

And in case you are wondering specifically about COVID-19 and sex, she links two guidelines (one by Harvard and one by New York City).  I did have to laugh at this line from the NYC DPH.

You are your safest sex partner. Masturbation will not spread COVID-19, especially if you wash your hands (and any sex toys) with soap and water for at least 20 seconds before and after sex.

BC

[BostonCard]

Sorry I missed this article earlier, but it is a good one by Julia Marcus, from HMS.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archiv...lp/611482/

The idea is that just as preaching abstinence to prevent transmission of HIV is unrealistic, keeping everyone in a quarantine indefinitely is also unrealistic.  Of course, at this point every state in the nation that instituted a lockdown is starting to lift it, so the idea that we would keep shelter-in-place orders going indefinitely is a bit of a red herring.  We are arguing about the pace of opening, not whether or not to open, which I think is the right framing for the debate.

To that end, I think Marcus' article is a good one.  She pushes harm reduction for COVID-19, the equivalent of "practice safe sex" but for a respiratory pandemic.

What does harm reduction look like for the coronavirus? First, policy makers and health experts can help the public differentiate between lower-risk and higher-risk activities; these authorities can also offer support for the lower-risk ones when sustained abstinence isn’t an option. Scientists still have a lot to learn about this new virus, but early epidemiological studies suggest that not all activities or settings confer an equal risk for coronavirus transmission. Enclosed and crowded settings, especially with prolonged and close contact, have the highest risk of transmission, while casual interaction in outdoor settings seems to be much lower risk. A sustainable anti-coronavirus strategy would still advise against house parties. But it could also involve redesigning outdoor and indoor spaces to reduce crowding, increase ventilation, and promote physical distancing, thereby allowing people to live their lives while mitigating—but not eliminating—risk.

Second, health experts can also acknowledge the contextual factors that affect both a person’s decisions and their risk of coronavirus transmission. Some people are seeking human contact outside of their households because of intense loneliness, anxiety, or a desire for pleasure. The decision to go for a run with a friend or gather in a park with extended family may be in conflict with current public-health guidance in some communities, but for some people, the low risk of coronavirus transmission in these settings may be outweighed by the health benefits of human connection, exercise, and being outdoors. We can also acknowledge that some people can’t comply with public-health guidance because of structural factors, including systemic racism, that render physical distancing a privilege. If we ignore this broader context, people of color will continue to bear the brunt of not only the pandemic itself, but also American society’s response to it.

Third, Americans can accept that, despite our best efforts, some people will choose to engage in higher-risk activities—and instead of shaming them, we can provide them with tools to reduce any potential harms. Want to see your grandkids? Still planning to have that party? Meet up outside. Don’t share food or drinks. Wear masks. Keep your hands clean. And stay home if you’re sick.

And in case you are wondering specifically about COVID-19 and sex, she links two guidelines (one by Harvard and one by New York City).  I did have to laugh at this line from the NYC DPH.

You are your safest sex partner. Masturbation will not spread COVID-19, especially if you wash your hands (and any sex toys) with soap and water for at least 20 seconds before and after sex.

BC