And yet no one is weighing the health risks of not being able to go to the gym at all. You say there could be deaths, or spreading of disease, which I would worry about as well. But what about getting into bad shape, poor heart health, lack of muscle tonus in older people prone to injury, depression, bad eating spurred on by lack of exercise; how are all of these weighed against these other risks? I don't see anyone making that analysis when they want to shoot down opening gyms. Personally I find it appalling that everyone would automatically think it proper to throw younger and healthier people under the bus in the first place to protect those at risk. That's immediately a backward way of looking at it; for any Randians out there, I do agree with her maxim that you shouldn't build a society around sacrificing the strongest to bolster the weakest, unless it's entirely voluntary. And even for those who are at risk, what are actually the greatest risks for them if the shutdown is prolonged for many months?
Now if it was just a question of everyone staying put for 4-8 weeks I could see the logic of just shutting it all down. But when I hear talk of the social distancing and public areas remaining closed for, I dunno, half a year, I find the logic of "but teh virus!!" dubious since I rarely hear talk of what costs are incurred on that side of it (putting aside the economic costs, which I also agree with the right-wingers that this costs lives and quality of life as well).
