The assumption that one point of view is “factual” and the other a “denier” point of view is arrogant. The COVID situation is complex, and the best approach is not clear. Sweden has taken a very different approach from the US.

Also, there is a cost/benefit equation in play: the benefit of slowing the progression of the disease, versus the cost of crippling our economy. A crippled economy will cause real harm to the most vulnerable in society. If the isolation strategy continues for much longer, we could have a longlasting depression like in the 1930s.

I don’t know what the right strategy is. It needs to be data-driven. The data must be there. But somehow it is not being analyzed. The strategy has become politicized — just as with the author’s article, already labeling people as “deniers” simply because they made a choice.

Our friends (former neighbors) asked us to get together with them. The husband said in his email, “We are all going to get it anyway — might as well get it over with.”

I declined. I don’t want to risk it, mainly for my wife. But he does. That is not being a denier. He knows the risk: he merely accepts it.

People have a right to make choices. Calling them “deniers” is arrogant, is a nasty label, and is divisive and serves to politicize the crisis.