> Lockdowns were designed to cause ... the most acute spread to occur in the most marginalized populations
A husband, wife and children living together are surrounded by social contacts at all times.
In the UK, a single person is told that they can select one other person and visit them.
All of their support structures - office chat, therapy, meet ups, the pub, dating, everything else - completely gone and replaced with staring at four walls.
The regulations completely ignore my living situation. In practice it would mean that once a week I end up seeing a friend and the rest of the week I'm totally isolated.
Whether they were explicitly designed to hurt people like me, or whether I just 'fall through the cracks', is mostly irrelevant.
I'm just not doing it because it doesn't work. As I posted above, I tried it and became mentally ill.
It's not a 'hardship' like say, running low on money and having to try to find a job, it's an active legislative attack on my wellbeing and basically all of the escape hatches have been closed.
If building regulations in my area required walls to be built out of jelly, I'd still build them with bricks. It's safer, regardless of what some bureaucrat says.
I didn't say - and do not believe - that they were designed to hurt people. Rather, they were designed in such a way that the modification in acuity is different in different groups. Specifically, lockdowns are not designed to leverage low-risk groups, and are instead designed to leverage privileges which are distributed with profound inequity in society.
And this point is entirely transparent. Look at every supporting document of this concept (none of which existed prior to 2020, by the way). They all, without any exception that has been brought to my attention, presume that the ameliorating effects on the virus are related to staying in homes, reducing human contacts, etc. - things that do not apply to members of our community who are experiencing houselessness, to people who have left college dorms with no place to go other than multigen housing, etc.
They are transparently designed to reduce the acuity of spread by leveraging privileges that these groups don't have. Another way of saying this is that they are designed to cause the most acute spread to occur in these groups.
Consider also that lockdowns - and even the word lockdown - comes from the American prison system. It is part and parcel of the kind of thinking that precipitated the marginalization of these groups in the first place.
I think that capable, reasonable, good people designed this policy, but did so without listening to what the most qualified experts had to say on the subject.