This self-quarantine stuff really is very bad for people who don't belong to tribes

OK, I’m pretty concerned about the idea that the CDC would almost order those over 60 to stay home as much as possible (Retirement blog), on the theory that if they get infected randomly they are much more likely to strain hospitals with ICU and ventilator use. It’s about being a good citizen to flatten the curve.

Never mind, a lot of people over 60 keep working (and have to do so given today’s demographics).

The guidelines suggest giving up shame, and publicly asking family and friends to take care of you.  Well, I live alone; and being childless, I don’t have the social capital (having others’ backs) to do that.  Compulsory tribalism (and localism) doesn't work for me; it just pushes me into inferior ("sissified") social status.  I'm not in line to apply to live in an intentional community (like Twin Oaks, Issues blog, April 7, 2012).
     

I’ve stayed on my feet and managed to avoid major illness because I have to.
   

There is something about subordinating your own personal goals to the welfare of the group you belong to, except that I don’t really belong to a group.

It all gets back to needing to have children first, for that group socialization to set in.

They could become very determined to stop seniors from participating in society and let them become dependent, to keep the whole hospital system from breaking down. 

 Later, there were reports (AP story) that the Trump administration ordered the CDC not tell seniors to stop all flying, but the rest of the recommendations remain. 

 Charlie Warzel op-in-ed (NYTimes) on the morality of this in discussing Coronavirus and class war, even maintaining there is a moral duty to join protests and volunteer even at existential risk to self to help the community. 

   

See most recent posts on retirement and international issues blogs.