Abstinence-Only in Vogue Again

Someone made the obvious connection between the lockdown order and abstinence-only sex education.

Public-health campaigns that promote the total elimination of risk, such as abstinence-only sex education, are a missed opportunity to support lower-risk behaviors that are more sustainable in the long term. Abstinence-only education is not just ineffective, but it’s been associated with worse health outcomes, in part because it deprives people of an understanding of how to reduce their risk if they do choose to have sex. And without a nuanced approach to risk, abstinence-only messaging can inadvertently stigmatize anything less than 100 percent risk reduction. Americans have seen this unfold in real time over the past two months as pandemic shaming—the invective, online and in person, directed at those perceived as violating social-distancing rules—has become a national pastime.

[...]

What does harm reduction look like for the coronavirus? First, policy makers and health experts can help the public differentiate between lower-risk and higher-risk activities; these authorities can also offer support for the lower-risk ones when sustained abstinence isn’t an option. Scientists still have a lot to learn about this new virus, but early epidemiological studies suggest that not all activities or settings confer an equal risk for coronavirus transmission. Enclosed and crowded settings, especially with prolonged and close contact, have the highest risk of transmission, while casual interaction in outdoor settings seems to be much lower risk. A sustainable anti-coronavirus strategy would still advise against house parties. But it could also involve redesigning outdoor and indoor spaces to reduce crowding, increase ventilation, and promote physical distancing, thereby allowing people to live their lives while mitigating—but not eliminating—risk.

I think it's sad that something as banal as "we need nuance" as a guiding principle for lockdown restrictions is not a widespread ethos.

The worst case was probably Michigan, where nonsensical restrictions like no gardening and no painting just led to a big pushback. It wasn't a ban on those activities specifically, but stores were indeed directed to close off paint and gardening aisles (and flooring and furniture) because they were deemed non-essential. Unless you had already secured those supplies ahead of time, you couldn't engage in those activities after the order was issued.