Blind Trust

Like many people around the world, I struggle daily with the new reality facing us due to COVID-19.  It's not hard to find arguments for and against the measures being taken to curb the virus and the vitriol is increasing daily on the battle lines.  While this post is not primarily about advocating for a side in that argument, I will take a few minutes to state very clearly my position.  I was 100% in favor of the initial lockdown measures, almost entirely due to the absence of data and too many critical unknowns.  I continued to be for the lockdown after preliminary data became available even though my natural desire was for the disease to just run it's course.  Too many people were dying and the epicenter was so close to where I live, making it all very real.  I turned against the lockdowns a couple of weeks ago when a few things became clear to me.  First, I am in very low risk and so is my family.  In saying this, I understand someone in a different circumstance would likely have the complete opposite view and I respect that.  Second, as the contagion rate increases with every new study, that also means the death rate is dropping.  By one measure the true mortality rate of COVID-19 is .5%.  Third, there is a way to keep the most at-risk out of harm's way while letting the vast majority of society go about their new normal.  This notion that we must all be locked away, now that we understand the facts of the virus, seems arbitrarily severe.  And finally, the consequences of the solution are beginning of showing signs to be just as detrimental (and possibly more) than the virus itself.

But this post isn't about my opinion, although I'm guessing any response to this post will be solely about that.  This post is about why suddenly as a society we decided to blindly trust the severity of this virus when our entire history is riddled with examples of ignoring critical health warnings.  What has changed in the way we think, the risks we are willing to take, and our responsibility for others?  Let's walk through two counter-examples.

Smoking has long been part of our society despite longstanding and clear negative health impacts to both ourselves and those around us.  As early as 1929, German Scientist Fritz Lickint discovered a link between smoking and lung cancer.  And yet people continued to smoke.  By 1964 the US Surgeon General issued a definitive report linking cigarettes with lung cancer.  And yet we continued to smoke.  In 1986 the US Surgeon General concluded second hand smoke was harmful and potentially deadly.  And while Cigarettes were on the decline, we continued to smoke and did so in public.  While smoking in public has gotten more and more restrictive, smoking cigarettes is still common with roughly 14% of the US population declared as regular smokers.  To make matters worse, as the rate of smokers continually decreased from the mid-1960's, we introduced Vaping in roughly 2005.  Today an estimated 9 million citizens say they are regular vapers.  Even worse, our youth are using e-Cigarettes at alarming numbers.  In one survey 26% of high school juniors said they vaped in the past 30 days and 11% of 8th graders had as well.  Over the past 2 years we've begun to see Vapers develop chronic and deadly lung issues as a result of their e-cigarette use. And yet people continue to Vape.  Years of evidence on the link between Cigarettes and lung disease.  Years of evidence linking second hand smoke and lung disease.  Years of evidence linking e-cigarettes and lung disease.  And yet we continue to smoke/vape, it continues to be legal, and you can still do it in public.  So why is this version of an activity which impacts our lungs, causing sickness and death, ignored by so many of those same people who blindly believe in the risks of COVID-19?



Unprotected sex, outside of marriage, is a common practice in our society.  And while I couldn't easily find when health risks became clear, I think it's safe to say we've known for at least the past 100 years.  In a 2017 survey, 46% of High School Seniors who'd had sex in the past month did so without protection.  It's estimated that as high as 65% of those having sex, do so regularly without using a condom.  Yet we know unprotected sex leads to sexually transmitted disease, some of which cause lifelong health issues and death.  According to WHO, unprotected sex ranks second amongst the top ten risk factors to health in terms of the burden of disease they cause.  The most extreme example is AIDS, where tens of millions of people have died from the disease since the 1980's.  WHO also estimates that 350 million people annually contract some form of treatable sexually transmitted disease.  A 2016 survey showed unprotected sex as the fastest growing health risk for teens.  And while I don't care to entertain a debate on abortion, unprotected sex results in an estimated 600,000+ abortions per year (deaths of unborn humans).  So with all of this clear and abundant data on the health risks and associated deaths, why are so many people still having unprotected sex?  In fact right now, during lockdown, I'm guessing many unmarried couples are regularly having unprotected sex since buying condoms would require them to leave their house and risk the COVID virus.  Think about that, some of our youth are more willing to engage in an activity that has high risk to their health than one that would translate to a lower risk to their health.

Back to my original question.  What is it about COVID that's created this level of fear and paranoia, when other and more severe health risks are dismissed daily as commonplace?  Why are so many in our society willing to blindly trust health officials, with far less scientific data, about COVID?  Why is our government willing to go to this level of extreme to contain this disease when they gladly accept the tax revenue associated with cigarettes which causes the same type of lung disease?  Time will tell if this is just a short-term, knee-jerk reaction or whether we're now entering a permanent new norm.  But if this many in our society are this concerned about public and personal health risks, maybe we should pay a little more attention (and get a lot more strict) about some of the health risks we choose to ignore and profit off every day.

Once Upon a Time, A COVID-19 Movie Edition

Once upon a time Baby and Johnny met while Baby's family was vacationing in the Catskills.  Entitled Baby learns to dance from bad boy Johnny, despite objections from Baby's overbearing father.  The end of summer party arrives, Baby is put in a corner, Johnny gallantly rescues her, they land the big dance move, and Dirty Dancing was born.

Today, the Houseman of Representatives family escapes DC from the Coronavirus and travels to the Catskills.  The Kellerman resort, purchased by Donald Trump during the 2008 financial crisis, has been renamed Mir A Lago Catskills.  The resort is open, but following strict social distancing guidelines following an outbreak of COVID, mostly amongst the aging guests.  Baby, played by AOC, is petulant as ever waiting out her summer before she can join the Peace Corps.  Baby tries to convert the entertainment staff to Democratic Socialism and tells them they should demand a living wage.  While talking to the entertainment staff, Baby meets Johnny Castle, played by the entire mainstream media.  Johnny quickly becomes infatuated with AOC and convinces her to go to her father, played by Dr. Anthony Fauci, for testing kits and ventilators for the now sick staff.  As the lockdown continues, employees and guests are at odds on whether to proceed with the end of season party.  Baby's father is adamant that she stay locked away and miss the party, therefore forfeiting her chance to use it as a stage to tell the employees they should not go back to work when the pandemic is over.  At the movie's climax, Johnny races to Baby's cabin, pounds on the door, tells her Father "Nobody Puts Baby on Lockdown", whisks her away to the party where they pass a $23.00 minimum wage, the employees declare "They've had the time of their lives", and they all live happily ever after.  Except they don't because Mir A Lago can't afford to pay $23/hour and replaces most of their staff with self-service automation.

Once upon a time Phil Connors travels with producer Rita Hanson and Cameraman Larry to Punxsutawney PA for the annual Groundhog Day celebrations.  Phil wakes up to Sonny and Cher every morning, lives the same day over and over, tries to seduce Rita and fails, steals Punxsutawney Phil, has a death wish, becomes a good man, gets Rita to fall in love with him, finally wakes up on a new day, and the cult classic movie Groundhog Day was born.

Today, the CNN news crew decides to broadcast Groundhog Day even after concerns grow regarding the COVID virus and the need to social distance.  Phil Connors, played by Chris Cuomo, is unable to make the trip as he battles COVID and instead does his weather broadcast remotely while in quarantine. Rita, played by Ellen DeGeneres' talk show staff, is furloughed by CNN and replaced with a less expensive non-union producer.  Buster, played by NJ Governor Phil Murphy, decides at the last minute to cancel the festival even though Punxsutawney has virtually no confirmed cases of COVID in the town.  Buster imposes a strict lockdown, closes all parks, requires mandatory face masks when in stores, and implements a fine for those not following the new mandates.  With this new lockdown, Phil begins to live the same day over and over again until it drives him crazy.  Meanwhile, residents of Punxsutawney have grown restless and decide to hold a "Re-Open Punxsutawney Rally" in the center of town.  Punxsutawney Phil attends, sees his shadow, predicts 6 more weeks of lockdown, and is fined for congregating in public.  Ned Ryerson, played by Damon Johns, is arrested for price gouging N95 masks, hand sanitizer, and toiler paper.  The Tip Top Cafe, played by every small business in America, runs out of money, has to let go of Doris the Waitress (played by 27 million American workers), files for stimulus money under the CARES act, is not awarded any money as it goes to Harvard and Shake Shack instead, files again after round 2 of the stimulus package, receives a small forgivable loan, barely holds on thanks to a take out only service and partnership with Grubhub, and they all live happily ever after.  Except they don't because the health and economic hardships created by the lockdown last far longer than the virus itself and Punxsutawney was never the same town again.

Once upon a time Nick Young and Rachel Chu meet in NYC and fall in love.  They travel to Singapore for Nick's best friend's wedding, Rachel discovers Nick is loaded, is treated poorly by Nick's mother and the wedding's bridesmaids, decides her love for Nick isn't worth it and abrubptly leaves, Nick races to the airport before Rachel boards her flight to propose, and the movie Crazy Rich Asians was born.

Today, Nick is "The Bachelor" and meets Rachel, 1 of 25 women vying for Nick's love.  After several rose ceremonies, 1:1, and group dates, Nick is down to the final 4.  Nick decides to take Rachel to his best friend's wedding for their hometown visit even though COVID-19 is beginning to ravage Asia.  After all, Singapore is considered safe given their extensive testing, tracking, and social distancing measures.  While in Singapore, Rachel discovers Nick is actually a toilet paper magnate.  Nick's mother, played by Nancy Pelosi, immediately suspects Rachel of only being interested in him because her family is down to their last few rolls.  Nick's mother is widely criticized after appearing on the Late Show in front of an entire room of toilet paper, while advocating for Rachel's dismissal from the show.  Rachel meets the Bridesmaids, played by The Squad, who try and shame her for the carbon emissions she put out flying to Singapore and a tweet from 2006 (when she was 10) which they believe clearly shows she's a xenophobe.  Rachel can't take anymore, decides to leave Singapore before the travel ban takes effect, is met at the airport by Nick who promises to give up his toilet paper fortune and asks for her hand in marriage, accepts his proposal, returns to NYC and everyone lives happily ever after.  Except they don't because a second wave of COVID sweeps Singapore and Nick's mother dies. Rachel and Nick return to NYC, bringing the virus with them, and infect patient 0 in the US.  For the next several months in the US thousands are infected and die, society is on lockdown, the economy is destroyed, millions of workers are out of jobs, and the movie title is changed to Crazy Sick Asians.

Random Thoughts of Idleness

From time to time I feel the need for a stream of consciousness high colonic where I evacuate the thoughts bouncing around in my head.  It's essentially the mental equivalent of an earworm where failure to get the various thoughts out just means they play over and over again in my mind.

Side note on earworms...that's the actual term for a song that gets stuck in your head and you sing it over an over again until sweet relief finally takes over.  And sorry for what I'm about to do to you...Dancing Queen by Abba.



So welcome to the Dancing Queen version of my mind.

I'm fascinated by the public's response to products as they relate to disease.  While reports of Corona Beer's steep sales decline has been very misrepresented, it is true that sales have suffered amidst the crisis.  This is partly true due to restaurant and bar closings,  but one study showed it's directly correlated to the stigma attached to the name.  A related example is the difficulty in finding Chinese food restaurants open right now.  While restaurants are struggling to survive, most have transitioned to take out only.  The exception appears to be Chinese food restaurants where the vast majority, at least in our area, are temporarily closed.  I can only assume this is also tied to the stigma of the virus or maybe just rampant and idiotic racism.  The best example in my lifetime was the diet pill named Ayds.  If you aren't familiar with the product, it was a candy style dietary supplement in the 1970's and early 1980's.  Sales were very strong until the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (that's right, AIDS) was discovered in 1981.  By the mid-1980's the phonetic similarity of the names was impacting sales of the supplement to the tune of roughly 50%.  The company tried to change the name, but ultimately was taken off the market.  If you want to know why they had such an issue, I recommend you watch this commercial for the pill and take into context the similarity to the symptoms of the AIDS disease.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTitP5_yDUU

At what point in the COVID pandemic did the lockdown policies become the new battleground of liberals vs. conservatives?  I completely understand the line in the sand between those who want to re-open and those who believe public safety is of greater concern.  However, I would have thought the re-open crowd would be business owners and young people, while the public safety crowd would be those whose economic risk was low and the at-risk/elderly.  However, it appears somewhere along the way this became Red vs. Blue.  Republican vs. Democrat.  Conservative vs. Liberal.    Reds believing personal freedoms are gradually being eroded in an attempt to drive us to the socialist state they believe all Blue's are trying to create.  Blues believing personal freedoms are a small price to pay for public safety and Reds care more about their bank accounts dying than their fellow citizens.  Republicans screaming the Dems must hate small business owners and want the economy to crash in another effort to remove Trump.  Democrats screaming the Republicans must hate the at-risk and elderly and value money over the health of our citizens.  Conservatives debating whey liquor, marijuana, and abortions are deemed essential services while Church is not.  Liberals asking Conservatives why they value vulnerability and life as it relates to abortions, but not as it relates to those at risk of dying from COVID.  So what changed?  Early on it appeared opinions on both sides of the debate were a diverse cross-section of our social/economic/age/race/religious points of views.  Then suddenly it devolved yet again into a political debate.  People who argued for a lockdown now saying we should re-open.  Those who said this was all ridiculous and over-reaction, now chastising rallies to re-open states.  And I don't think this is about having more facts to have a more informed opinion.  I believe the gravity of our political views has once again drawn us into our separate corners.

Most of us are spending more time with our spouses and significant others than we ever have in our lives.  At no point in my 24 years with my wife have we ever spent this much continuous time together.  Normally we'd have work or travel or personal engagements to give brief breaks apart.  But with the lockdowns, we've had no more than an hour apart from each other since March 5th.  I suspect many families are the same and I'm curious to see what this does to relationship statistics moving forward.  Will these measures bring families closer together, reminding couples why they got together in the first place or will the constant connection drive couples apart?  Will we see a COVID baby boom in 9 months or an increase in divorce rates?  Will domestic abuse rates go up or down?  I have to believe infidelity is currently at an all-time low, but what happens when people are allowed to socialize again?  As for me, I've really enjoyed spending more time at home and also really happy my wife doesn't own a gun.

I miss sports, but I'm thrilled there's no Yankees vs. Red Sox.  I didn't think it was possible for social media to get more annoying and contentious, but we also need it now more than ever to stay connected.  I always look forward to each day, but also spend each day trying to erase 1 hour blocks of time to get closer to when I can go to bed.  I talk about COVID and flattening the curve daily and also look forward to the day when I never utter either again.  Long stationary lines outside of stores in order to prevent too many people inside does not seem to make sense.  I've lost the concept of time while simultaneously feeling like time is standing still.  We are living the movie Groundhog day, except in this version of the movie Phil Connors reports on Groundhog day from his house while recovering from COVID, Rita Hanson gets furloughed in favor of non-union producers, Larry the Cameraman dies of COVID (because well, it's Chris Elliot so of course he does), Ned Ryerson is price gauging N95 masks and Hand Sanitizer,  Punxsutawney Phil get's a citation for going outside, and the song I Got You Babe is played so many times that it replaces Dancing Queen as your current earworm.   At least I got Abba out of our head.

The Turd Mentality?

If you aren't familiar with the term Herd Mentality, it refers to how individuals can be influenced by their peers to adopt certain behaviors on a largely emotional, rather than rational, basis (Wikipedia).  It's also known as mob, pack, and gang mentality.  An historical example of the herd mentality was the "Tulip Mania" of the Dutch Golden Age where a single tulip bulb would sell for as much as 10x the average craftsman's salary.  Shortly after being introduced, tulips became a luxury item when a normal flower was nothing more than a commodity.  Within a few years bulb prices continued to rise to the point the Dutch actually created a Futures Market for bulbs in 1636.  And then the tulip bulb market completely collapsed in February of 1637, likely and ironically, due to the outbreak of the bubonic plague. 



Today's current mania is centered around paper products, specifically, toilet paper.  The onset of the CV-19 lockdown, and subsequent advice from the CDC to stock up on household items, has as created a run on toilet paper never before seen in our lifetime.  Most of us know it's irrational, yet we all are now part of the herd, feeling lucky when we score a role of toilet paper we'd hesitate to use in a gas station bathroom.  Yes, thanks to CV-19, we now have the Turd Mentality.

Quick side note:  It's fascinating to think about what creates the herd mentality.  Think about a line forming to board an airplane.  It's not the first person who gets in the line which creates the herd mentality.  In fact, if you are like me, you silently mock the weary business traveler, alone standing in line 30 minutes before boarding.  The herd mentality is actually created by the second person.  At that point, you start to assess whether you are going to miss out on something if you don't join the line.  What happens if a few more people get in line?  Will I have overhead space for my carry on?  By the time your quick assessment is done, travelers with faster mental computation have already joined and now the line is several deep.  At that point, you see the herd mentality take effect and the line goes from 1 to 2 to 10 to everyone.  And then sadly the late arrivers show up, shaking their heads, dismayed by the fact they are at the end of the line and sure to miss out.  

I believe the Turd Mentality originated through a combination of normal disaster preparedness, extreme fear of the virus, ambiguity of what a lockdown would mean, and what countless end of times movies/books/shows have shown us all.  I will spend a few minutes breaking down each of these components.

Disaster Preparedness: When the announcement of imminent lockdowns was made, many people's shopping habits were very similar to how they would normally stock up in preparation for a natural disaster, like a hurricane.  In those times, you need to get certain supplies which you may not normally need (like water).  In fact, if you watched any news reports at the start of the lockdown, bottled water was also initially being hoarded.  So why did water not end up in a shortage when TP did?  People quickly realized this was not a normal natural disaster where they'd be out of their home or electricity would be knocked out, therefore water was always going to be in abundance.  They simply needed to just turn on their faucets.  Meanwhile, more and more news reports began to broadcast the herd (and in this case some real turds) beginning to get shopping carts full of toilet paper.  And we all begin to ask the question...what happens if I run out of toilet paper?  We'll call this the metaphorical "first person in line". 

Fear of the Virus: Meanwhile, fear of the virus continues to grow and some portion of our society is starting to get afraid to leave their house.  We've started to shut down the economy.  People are working from home.  The initial wave of non-essential stores are closing.  So the fearful gather up the courage to make one more trip before they hunker down...they go to the store to stock up on supplies.  And when they go to the store, they are armed with the mental images of the TP hoarding and the new information of TP shelves which are showing just the beginnings of becoming bare.  So they gobble up all they can.  We now have the second "person" in the metaphorical TP line.  The herd is getting ready to pounce.

Lockdown Ambiguity: Very few of us have ever been under mandatory lockdown and therefore we didn't know what to expect.  Would we be able to leave our house for essentials or would that be forbidden?  Would all stores eventually close or would some remain open?  Our internal threat computers are missing data to make the proper decisions so we look for any available data to guide our paths.  And what data is readily available?  Loads and loads of people buying toilet paper.  They must know something I don't, so TP must be something I need.  But this can't really be true.  I'll just go to the store, and while selection may be low, I'll get my TP without any problem.  Yet amazingly, when we hit the stores, there's none left.  But we are smart, we know of other places, and luckily we find a couple packs via online, or drug stores, or the smaller markets.  But our stories are told to friends & family and posted on social media.  The panic is in full force.  Now the metaphorical TP line is 10 deep.


The way I felt after finally finding TP at the store

End of Times Entertainment: Now even the most calm are in some form of a panic on whether they will ever find TP.  Every doomsday show/movie/book we've ever watched tells us certain items, once a commodity, now are being traded like currency.  In fact, some restaurants in Italy were taking TP as payment for food at one point.  Entertainment told us medicine, booze, weapons, and cigarettes would be the most important but TP isn't sexy...of course entertainment would leave that out.  The irrational part of our brains, now with tons of idle time, is going into overdrive about the impending TP crisis.  Amazon has to have some...awesome, found it...shoot expected delivery May of 2023.  We go store to store and every shelf is bare.  Signs are now posted limiting the amount you can buy.  You see someone with a pack of TP and in your head you are computing how much you'd actually pay them for the pack.  You are at the back of the metaphorical TP line and you don't want to be left out.  TP has now become an end of times commodity and the Turd Mentality is in full effect. 

But don't be dismayed, much like the Tulip Bulb collapse of the 1600's, we are already beginning to see the TP market slow down.  While still light in some places, our largest store has had stocked TP shelves for the past 1.5 weeks.  The herd has grown more compassionate, only buying 1-2 packs, instead of a cartful.  Okay, they aren't more compassionate, they are being limited by the stores.  Regardless, the panic and fear is starting to subside.  We won't need to engineer a homemade bidet. We won't need to cut paper towel roles in half.  We won't need to shower after every trip to the bathroom. And as quickly as it came, the great TP crisis of 2020 will go away.  To paraphrase a great Seinfeld episode, "Yes, we will indeed be able to spare a square". 

Attestupa

Attestupa is a prehistoric Nordic phrase supposedly originating from sites where the elderly threw themselves off cliffs (or were thrown off) when they were unable to support themselves or assist in a household.  I doubt we'll find anyone who thinks this is an acceptable practice and we'll consider this one bookend in the spectrum of how a society should treat those who are old, sick, or otherwise at risk.  

Our most recent example of the bookend at the other end of the spectrum is the current CV-19 lockdown, where we are figuratively throwing our young and healthy off an economic, social, and mental cliff in order to protect the elderly and at risk.   I believe much of the nation was and is willing to temporarily give up some freedom in order to prevent the spread of a dangerous pandemic.  I also believe we are willing to do so, even if our own personal risk is low, so those most at risk can remain as healthy as possible.  So for a moment let's abandon the notion the social distancing measures were wrong in the first place and instead focus on what it will take to resume some form of normalcy in our lives.  

We were told these extreme measures were necessary to flatten the curve to slow the spread of the virus.  The most important word in that sentence is "slow".  This was never about waiting until there was no threat at all or the virus was eradicated.  This was always about slowing the spread of the virus to give us time to learn more about how to treat it and to prevent overwhelming our medical response.  

In a perfect scenario a vaccine or highly successful treatment would quickly be found and everyone would have the confidence to resume life as normal.  What we know is a vaccine is at least a year away (and more likely 18 months).  After 4 months we also don't have a treatment protocol agreed upon by health experts to cure those infected.  And we have no timeline for mass testing of potentially infected as well as antibody testing to see those who may be immune.  So in short, we really aren't any closer to a medical solution today than we were 4 months ago.  

Here's some rough stats (probably not perfect but good enough to make my point)

• Globally 1.9 million people out of 5.5 billion are known to be infected.  In those terms, we are all on quarantine over a .000345 infection rate. 
• Globally 119k have died out of those 1.9 million infected.  In those terms, our lives are all on hold over a 6% global mortality rate.  You have a 94% chance of survival if you get it and that's assuming every demographic has the same mortality rate, which we know is not the case.
• In the US 581,000 out of 319 million are known to be infected.  That's a .0018 infection rate.
• In the US 23,604 of those infected have died.  That's a .04 mortality rate.  You have a 96% chance of survival.
• We have 17 states with less than 1000 confirmed cases.  We have another 15 states with less than 3000 confirmed cases.  That's 60% of the states in our country.
• NY and NJ have over half of the reported deaths for the entire country (NY alone is 42%).  And while I don't have the numbers, I'm guessing NYC and Newark account for more than 75% of those numbers.  

We have seen the curve begin to flatten but we are also regularly warned of the dire consequences of returning to life as normal too soon.  So what then is the acceptable criteria for beginning to relax the current measures in place?  There will be no vaccine this year.  We have no end in site for a cure.  There is no timetable for mass testing nor a plan to use that testing to systematically return life to the new normal.  So what then are we waiting for?  Newly infected cases could go to zero but the risk of a return of the virus will still be there.  Our elected leaders are telling us they need science and data to guide their decisions on when we will re-open.  Another way to say that is they currently do not the necessary scientific data to make a decision about the best course forward.  In other words, that same lack of scientific data is being used to keep is on indefinite lockdown.  Net/net, limited data is apparently fine for definitively hurting 99% of the healthy population but not okay for potentially putting at risk the other 1% of the at risk population.

So I ask again, what will it take to reopen?  In the absence of a vaccine, a cure, and testing, what will give our elected leaders the comfort to relax the rules?  And if the answer is nothing, then we either need to gradually return to normal now or all be prepared for continued lockdown for several more months.  What if the real answer on how to save the most lives is for herd immunity to take effect?  What if our lockdown is simply prolonging the issue while creating a number of other unintended consequences like unemployment, increases in spousal abuse, and mental health erosion?  What if 80% of the population already is immune?  What if we never find a vaccine or cure?  

I want to reiterate I'm not attempting to minimize the significance or severity of CV-19.  I'm simply arguing the risks are extremely low for the vast majority of the population, so let us make our own decisions about how much risk we are willing to take.  For those who are old and/or at risk, by all means stay at home.  Social distance to your heart's content.  Allow them to continue to work from home if they choose.  But for everyone else, let them roam free.  Life is risky.  We die every day from disease, accidents, overdoses, old age, heart attacks, etc.  Life is hard and it ends the same for 100% of everyone.  Linda Ellis wrote, "Your life is made of two dates and a dash".  I'm not advocating putting someone else's dash at risk, I'm simply asking to be allowed to live my own dash as I see fit.