I’m talking about instinctual reactions towards random people whom you know nothing about.
Do you assume that with all the information and time that’s passed with restrictions in place, that they were somehow negligent? Are you more inclined to think they “deserved” it if so? Given that you don’t know the circumstances of their infection, how “interested” are you in the “how”? Or do you always extend sympathy as the first reaction, unless you’re told that the person did virally dangerous things (which of course doesn’t necessarily mean that’s how they got the virus)?
I don’t assume, but I do question in a way that some might consider insensitive. If I learn that the person is a healthcare/grocery/other essential worker, I stop questioning whether they could have been more careful and flip to sympathy. If I learn that they’ve been traveling or going to bars or engaging in similar risky behavior, or if they haven’t been wearing a mask, I jump to judgment. I realize I could be wrong in either direction, but that’s where my prejudices lie.
Not at all. Look, say they were a grocery working in a area with lots of MAGAites. The worker could well slather themselves with stuff and wear a dozen masks but that’s not enuf.
The number one reason for people canceling their appointments these days is because of COVID. They either have it or they have been in contact with someone who has tested positive.
It’s a disease, it’s all around us, and even if you take every reasonable precaution, you can still get it. Unless someone actually brags to me about the risky behavior that they have engaged in to get it, I will have nothing but sympathy for them.
ETA: I’ll also mention that it isn’t just academic, COVID cancelations cost me quite a bit.
OK, random people I know nothing about. Knowing nothing else, I am sympathetic towards anyone who gets a disease. I don’t make judgements or assumptions, no more than when someone gets
the flu or food poisoning. Knowing nothing else.
However, if I find out that they went to a political rally without a mask (where nobody else wore a mask either, as a signal of their politics), or went to a bar, or hosted or attended a big maskless party, then I figure they deserve what they got and I hope to God they didn’t give to someone else.
None. It’s a virus that is going around; lots of people have caught it. Making it the basis for moral judgment is just silly. I’m not the least interested in how people caught it, unless they caught it from someone that I have also been in contact with, in which case it might obviously be useful for me to know.
This is easy to do because most people recover just fine. So we can think “I hope he gets just sick enough to teach him a lesson”. Replace “mask” with “condom” and be talking about the early AIDS days, your position gets evil.
Eta: just to be clear, I’m not saying your position is evil. Just spitballing about morals.
Did people refuse to wear condoms because they idolized someone who said that the HIV virus was a hoax perpetrated by his political opposition? If not then it’s an imperfect analogy.
Few get hospitalized, fewer still die. however, it seems that many or even most dont “recover just fine”, with studies showing long term damage. Hard to tell, I admit.
I didn’t tie it to American politics. There is a faction of Americans who share certain political beliefs, among them that wearing masks for public health reasons is an abridgement of their personal freedoms. They tie it to politics. Maskless political rallies by this group have been common. Otherwise I would have just said “gatherings.”
The more I think about it, doesn’t judging people for not being “careful” enough inherently involve doublethink? I mean, you can’t simultaneously believe that 1) everyone has a moral obligation to do everything they can to avoid catching the virus because they might pass it on to someone else; and 2) someone who does get it probably got it because they did something “wrong.” Like, if it were that easy to avoid simply by doing all the “right” things, we wouldn’t care about whether other people were being careful-enough, because people who were high risk or just low-risk-tolerant could simply be ultra-careful themselves and not worry about what other people are doing. (Yes, I know that it isn’t always so easy to do this in practice. That’s my point; #2 is simply not true, and therefore, it makes no sense to judge people.)
If you think most people have long term damage, I personally doubt it, that’s another thread. I think we can agree that covid isn’t as deadly as HIV/AIDS in the 80s.