I mean I won't go so far as to say she has no valid needs/concerns here, but like, they're on different levels. One could have severe health complications if their vigilance slips, the other wants to eat indoors at restaurants and host parties. I get that there are serious legitimate social needs people have, but I don't think these are equally important.
The only remotely "unreasonable" thing they mention on his side is "wearing a mask outdoors when nobody is around", which doesn't affect anyone but himself or prevent any socializing... You can't just "compromise" on infection-prevention measures, because you don't get half as sick if you get covid from dining in at a restaurant when it's not very busy vs when it's busy, you just get sick either way and risk major complications. And the fact that it's being published in a national publication definitely makes it feel worse, to me anyhow.
I hoped it was clear that wasn't what I was saying. Of course mental health issues can be a serious health concern with serious complications and consequences. But this writer doesn't present it in those terms, and I would say that at least in this specific case, she isn't experiencing anything with a risk of severe health issues. She wants a return to a normalcy that she knows he can't give without severe risk of harm.
Do you think she will be able to raise a well-adjusted child if that child can only ever interact with other children through a screen or outdoors? Her husband's need necessitate home-schooling or remote learning, and severely restrict the child's opportunities for socialization.
Her husband's needs and the needs of their future child are on a collision course right now. I consider that a severe complication.
again, not how the author frames it at all, though certainly possible for that to be an issue in the abstract. But I think it is reasonable to expect, if that were the main issue, it might be mentioned in the article, whatsoever
but in the article, it is implied the child has already been born, 1-2 years ago, and yet the author explicitly frames the conflict here in terms of her desire to return to normal. There is no mention of homeschooling or the child at all besides the pregnancy and that he went along on the vacation discussed in the last paragraph. I don't think those would be unreasonable concerns, but they are your concerns, not those of the author. For all we know they've already worked out an amenable solution to the kid's schooling and it isn't a source of conflict at all.
Do you think she will be able to raise a well-adjusted child if that child can only ever interact with other children through a screen or outdoors?
I mean I think the kid would have a tougher time at life if they were to find out that their immunocompromised dad were to die because their mom valued treats and trips to Dubai over the health of her husband.
There's lots of ways to modify the way you socialize (which she even goes over in the article) to accommodate for an immunocompromised spouse. If she isn't willing to keep doing it for whatever reason that's a separate problem.
You should read this article that was written in response to the OP. Yes, obviously this writer's own feelings are valid and it's not fair that we all need to put our lives on hold because our government decided to prioritize capital over human lives. That's obviously not her fault, and maybe I'm part of the problem by going hard on her when the issue is bigger than an NPR problem. But merely the decision to frame this, and publish this, as an interpersonal or marital issue when it's a political issue of denying disabled people their right to live their lives in public, is completely myopic and says a lot about how libertarian NPR is.
What are her needs? To spread covid to her husband and child and everyone around her so that she can take a trip to Dubai? Having to be covid cautious in the year 2024 when most of the world has gone "back to normal" is something a lot of people are dealing with right now, many with far less resources and far less ability than this woman. These people are disabled, immunocompromised, many have long covid - they are doing this out of necessity. So, I'm sorry, I have very little sympathy for this woman. I'm not saying it's an easy, simple thing to do, to remain covid cautious in the year 2024, but if she won't take covid precautions to protect herself and her child, she should at least have solidarity with her husband and the many like him. Instead she wants to meet in the middle, as if her needs are in any way comparable to his. One person wants to go to Dubai, the other person wants to not die.
I don't want to chalk all her needs up to "a trip to Dubai" though. She does have valid needs, you're right, remaining covid cautious these days is very difficult. One current running through this article I think is the need for social interaction. But throughout this article she desires to fulfill those needs by kicking those who have already been abandoned by our public institutions; by forcing her husband into dangerous situations and really in effect by joining with bourgeois interests in dismantling public health and letting a large part of the world just whither away and die as they succumb to this virus. What she needs to do is realize the only way she can fulfill her needs is through solidarity with her husband and the disabled and immunocompromised; by fighting for public health and a world where these people are not abandoned.
It's undeniable that there is a burden placed on a partner in a relationship where one party has a chronic condition
However
It is beyond inexcusable to air that shit out in public on one of the largest media platforms in the United States. If she wanted to write it on a small personal blog, or anonymously post about it on Twitter or something, I get it - we all gotta vent sometimes - but to write an article for NPR about how bad she feels because her husband has a chronic condition is peak ghoulishness. You think the husband wanted anything to do with this? You think he wanted to be called out publicly as being a paranoid overreactor (her implication, not mine)? Fuck no
100% this. Being a friend, partner, or family member of a chronically ill person, if you choose to actually support and aid and cherish them, is almost always a mental health burden. It hurts, it's difficult. That's legitimate and valid, and people who are supporting chronically ill people do deserve support and consideration and understanding. They're human, they're vulnerable to stress and depression. But not like this.
You're absolutely right, however an national publication is not where a partner should be blowing steam. This shit should be in a diary for her to process and then discuss with her husband.
I think she's probably experiencing something a lot of people are also experiencing and attempted to collect a lot of the current scholarship on how to deal with it. This article seems like it would be helpful for people in her situation.
Ok. How come we always center these people, though, and not people like me who are disabled and immunocompromised, who have been isolated from society for four, going on five years? Do you think I like it? Do you think I didn’t like doing things before all of this, too? Is that not callous? No, because none of you ever think about anything. The situations are entirely different; one doesn’t want to literally die or become more disabled and the other can’t… be social while being safe? Do you think the husband has no social needs either? I’m so tired.
Seemed to me like an article written by someone struggling with the mental health burden placed on her by her husband's autoimmune disorder.
It seems callous to disregard her needs as any less valid than this. She's clearly struggling through how to handle and balance them.
I mean I won't go so far as to say she has no valid needs/concerns here, but like, they're on different levels. One could have severe health complications if their vigilance slips, the other wants to eat indoors at restaurants and host parties. I get that there are serious legitimate social needs people have, but I don't think these are equally important.
The only remotely "unreasonable" thing they mention on his side is "wearing a mask outdoors when nobody is around", which doesn't affect anyone but himself or prevent any socializing... You can't just "compromise" on infection-prevention measures, because you don't get half as sick if you get covid from dining in at a restaurant when it's not very busy vs when it's busy, you just get sick either way and risk major complications. And the fact that it's being published in a national publication definitely makes it feel worse, to me anyhow.
This seems like an extreme minimization and dismissal of mental health to say it can't have severe health complications.
I hoped it was clear that wasn't what I was saying. Of course mental health issues can be a serious health concern with serious complications and consequences. But this writer doesn't present it in those terms, and I would say that at least in this specific case, she isn't experiencing anything with a risk of severe health issues. She wants a return to a normalcy that she knows he can't give without severe risk of harm.
They're about to have a child.
Do you think she will be able to raise a well-adjusted child if that child can only ever interact with other children through a screen or outdoors? Her husband's need necessitate home-schooling or remote learning, and severely restrict the child's opportunities for socialization.
Her husband's needs and the needs of their future child are on a collision course right now. I consider that a severe complication.
again, not how the author frames it at all, though certainly possible for that to be an issue in the abstract. But I think it is reasonable to expect, if that were the main issue, it might be mentioned in the article, whatsoever
but in the article, it is implied the child has already been born, 1-2 years ago, and yet the author explicitly frames the conflict here in terms of her desire to return to normal. There is no mention of homeschooling or the child at all besides the pregnancy and that he went along on the vacation discussed in the last paragraph. I don't think those would be unreasonable concerns, but they are your concerns, not those of the author. For all we know they've already worked out an amenable solution to the kid's schooling and it isn't a source of conflict at all.
Their child would probably appreciate a dad who's healthy and alive, and doesn't have to quarantine from them
Or being healthy and alive themselves. Covid can get kids too.
Can't help but notice that no one's going to bat in these threads for the mental health of those of us who lost a parent to COVID
I mean I think the kid would have a tougher time at life if they were to find out that their immunocompromised dad were to die because their mom valued treats and trips to Dubai over the health of her husband.
There's lots of ways to modify the way you socialize (which she even goes over in the article) to accommodate for an immunocompromised spouse. If she isn't willing to keep doing it for whatever reason that's a separate problem.
It doesn't seem like a separate problem. It seems like the modifications are not sufficient to meet her needs.
Did you write this article or what?
lol
You should read this article that was written in response to the OP. Yes, obviously this writer's own feelings are valid and it's not fair that we all need to put our lives on hold because our government decided to prioritize capital over human lives. That's obviously not her fault, and maybe I'm part of the problem by going hard on her when the issue is bigger than an NPR problem. But merely the decision to frame this, and publish this, as an interpersonal or marital issue when it's a political issue of denying disabled people their right to live their lives in public, is completely myopic and says a lot about how libertarian NPR is.
What are her needs? To spread covid to her husband and child and everyone around her so that she can take a trip to Dubai? Having to be covid cautious in the year 2024 when most of the world has gone "back to normal" is something a lot of people are dealing with right now, many with far less resources and far less ability than this woman. These people are disabled, immunocompromised, many have long covid - they are doing this out of necessity. So, I'm sorry, I have very little sympathy for this woman. I'm not saying it's an easy, simple thing to do, to remain covid cautious in the year 2024, but if she won't take covid precautions to protect herself and her child, she should at least have solidarity with her husband and the many like him. Instead she wants to meet in the middle, as if her needs are in any way comparable to his. One person wants to go to Dubai, the other person wants to not die.
I don't want to chalk all her needs up to "a trip to Dubai" though. She does have valid needs, you're right, remaining covid cautious these days is very difficult. One current running through this article I think is the need for social interaction. But throughout this article she desires to fulfill those needs by kicking those who have already been abandoned by our public institutions; by forcing her husband into dangerous situations and really in effect by joining with bourgeois interests in dismantling public health and letting a large part of the world just whither away and die as they succumb to this virus. What she needs to do is realize the only way she can fulfill her needs is through solidarity with her husband and the disabled and immunocompromised; by fighting for public health and a world where these people are not abandoned.
It's undeniable that there is a burden placed on a partner in a relationship where one party has a chronic condition
However
It is beyond inexcusable to air that shit out in public on one of the largest media platforms in the United States. If she wanted to write it on a small personal blog, or anonymously post about it on Twitter or something, I get it - we all gotta vent sometimes - but to write an article for NPR about how bad she feels because her husband has a chronic condition is peak ghoulishness. You think the husband wanted anything to do with this? You think he wanted to be called out publicly as being a paranoid overreactor (her implication, not mine)? Fuck no
100% this. Being a friend, partner, or family member of a chronically ill person, if you choose to actually support and aid and cherish them, is almost always a mental health burden. It hurts, it's difficult. That's legitimate and valid, and people who are supporting chronically ill people do deserve support and consideration and understanding. They're human, they're vulnerable to stress and depression. But not like this.
You're absolutely right, however an national publication is not where a partner should be blowing steam. This shit should be in a diary for her to process and then discuss with her husband.
I think she's probably experiencing something a lot of people are also experiencing and attempted to collect a lot of the current scholarship on how to deal with it. This article seems like it would be helpful for people in her situation.
Ok. How come we always center these people, though, and not people like me who are disabled and immunocompromised, who have been isolated from society for four, going on five years? Do you think I like it? Do you think I didn’t like doing things before all of this, too? Is that not callous? No, because none of you ever think about anything. The situations are entirely different; one doesn’t want to literally die or become more disabled and the other can’t… be social while being safe? Do you think the husband has no social needs either? I’m so tired.