But this isn’t what’s being advocated.

This is advocating the precautionary principle with regards to covid only. There’s no similar precautionary principle being considered for the effects of lockdowns.

Again, covid exceptionalism is an unwritten, underlying belief. https://twitter.com/mattprescott/status/1345226550501928960

If we’re digging into the ethics of it, you could argue you are MORE (see I can do random capitals too) obligated to use the precautionary principle for lockdowns as that is an INTERVENTION that you are making. The the moral weight lies more on the one performing an ACTION

Than it does on not acting, and therefore having the effects of a VIRUS.

(Much like how harm from the absence of an action is arguably slightly less “morally wrong” than harm perpetuated by an action)

But what do I know? I’m just a ZEBRA.