The Value of Life: Being Vulnerable During Stay At Home Orders

I don't often use this blog to be political, but I think now is an okay time to talk about a pretty hefty topic. It seems as though the COVID-19 pandemic has illuminated the values people place on life, and whose lives are in fact valuable.

This is a big statement and I'm going to try to articulate my thoughts as best as I can. Please be patient with me as I may circle around some ideas throughout this piece. I also want it to be clear that this is by no means a black and white issue, and at times I am playing Devil's Advocate, because it's very important to consider everything.

The idea of keeping vulnerable persons (people with underlying health conditions such cystic fibrosis---people like myself) and the elderly inside to keep them safe is a good idea. One I fully support. But I've seen a lot of people say how we should allow those who are young and healthy to be out and about, even recreationally. In fact, Governor Tim Walz is flirting with this idea with his Stay Safe Minnesota order. We are blurring the lines between giving people responsibilities and giving people freedom. While I and the rest of the vulnerable population have to stay home because we are at risk, others are starting to be allowed to freely go about their day, even return to work if they so choose.

Now, again, this isn't inherently bad. I want to stay home. I plan on it. I agree that those who are vulnerable need to stay home right now. I support that! But. The language we use must be chosen carefully. The orders should not be allowing non-vulnerable people to resume business as usual. [And yes I'm aware that life is not just continuing as usual, but we are starting to. If not in MN necessarily, then other parts of the US and the world.]
I always like to read the comments and replies people make on news sites' social media posts pertaining to stay at home orders and the pandemic as a whole. The picture below is a good example of this, and I've seen a lot of similar comments on WCCO's and the Star Tribune's coverage of the stay at home order. They show us how people think the vulnerable should stay home while the rest of us can return to our lives. And the revised stay at home orders (or the eliminated stay at home orders, the orders replaced with "Stay Safe" orders) seem to support this idea. If you are vulnerable, you aren't valuable.

Just one of the many comments protesting staying at home

I don't think Walz truly thinks this. I don't doubt that Minnesotans think this, but I like to believe Walz just might not be thinking this through all the way. Why do I have to stay at home while you can do more things? Your freedoms shouldn't require my repression. I'm sorry, but we are not living under a fascist dictator in Governor Walz. Your "rights" to go to the bar or to the salon aren't real when it is at the cost of the community's lives. Think of other people.

If we are starting to resume our normal lives, even if only "healthy" people are starting to resume their lives, then the number of cases will only rise. Then the risk will be even higher for vulnerable people like me. It isn't only up to me to stay home and stay healthy. Everyone needs to. It does not make sense to allow healthy people to go out and risk getting COVID. Because they'll continue to spread it, and it will continue to reach us. And not only us, but everyone. Because everyone is at risk and every one matters (boy I'm really trying to avoid saying all lives matter because yikes).

And COVID is so strange! The majority of COVID-19 patients with cystic fibrosis have reported mild symptoms, there have been very few deaths, and only a handful needed ventilators or ICU care. And there are healthy 30-year-olds who have died from the virus. So why are we saying that the vulnerable groups have to stay indoors while the non-vulnerable people are allowed to start returning to their lives? We cannot measure value of life based on health conditions.

Of course this is only scratching the surface. This conversation goes well into pre-existing conditions in healthcare and universal healthcare and the like. While I agree with the practice, the principles of Stay Safe Minnesota are iffy. Everyone is valuable, everyone is at risk. We can't allow the privileged populations to go out and do stuff that is not deemed necessary while forcing the rest to stay indoors because that's their unfortunate condition. We don't have a choice, but everyone else does.
It is so easy for people to say "If you're scared, don't go out!" when it just is not that simple. I'm sorry that you want a haircut, I'm sorry that you want to see your family, I'm sorry that you want to go to sports games and graduate and have your wedding and go to bars and go to your job and have a normal life. But dammit, so do I. Your freedoms and your longing to return to normalcy are valid, but so are mine.