Thread by @JuliaLMarcus

Quarantine fatigue is happening, whether we like it or not.

Is it time to consider a harm reduction approach to #COVID19?

A thread. 1/
bostonglobe.com/2020/05/04/nat…

Our messaging so far has focused on #StayHome, but risk isn't binary.

We know the highest risk of transmission is in crowded and enclosed environments, while casual interaction in outdoor settings seems to be much lower risk. 2/

https://twitter.com/mugecevik/status/1257392347010215947?s=20

When we tell people they need to continue to #StayHome indefinitely, we obscure this continuum of risk.

People may feel their only options are 100% risk reduction or business as usual, and we know business as usual would be disastrous.

How do we communicate the in-between? 3/

We could try to convey a spectrum of risk.

Not all social activities are created equal when it comes to risk of #COVID19. For example:

🟢Socializing online and within households
🟠Walking/running/biking with other people
🟡Group gathering outdoors
🔴Group gathering indoors

4/

Despite our best efforts, some people will have house parties.

We can offer them tips to reduce harm: stay home if sick, wear masks, don't share food/drinks.

@nychealthy took this harm reduction approach with its guidance on sex during #COVID19. 5/ google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j…

We've learned a few things from #HIV that are relevant here.

An all-or-nothing approach to prevention isn't sustainable for everyone. It can also promote shaming and policing of anything less than 100% risk reduction.

How can we do better with #COVID19?

/end

*Note: the yellow and orange dots should be reversed on #4.