But I think what folks want to hear is what it looks like to have a solution that actually

accommodates the extreme volumes of loss that we're still experiencing, which you were

very right to point out.

The human cost of this pandemic, which is still enormous, not to mention the largely

under, I would say, under discussed conversation about long COVID and the effects on the disability

community in particular.

And the traffic jam, the log jam that I've observed in these kinds of conversations is

that while there's a lot of consensus on how we don't want to be indifferent to marginalized

groups in particular, as leftists, when people say that the solution is something like continued

lockdowns, whatever that means, let's say school closures, no in nor dining, things like

this, that even folks who would kind of agree with the moral toll here seem to think for

political reasons, or because of the real cost to individuals not having their kids get

an education, not being able to open their businesses back up and continue to earn a salary

in a world where they are not in fact getting much in the way of support from the government

anymore.

It's just not something that they want to bear.

And they feel like it is, in fact, quote unquote, elites who are telling them that they

have to take the financial hit for policies that are going to hurt them the most.

What do you say to those kinds of people?

Well, the idea that indoor dining is the pinnacle of human existence is a little bit, that's

a little bit laughable.

I've held back on a laugh.

...