These last two weeks I have found myself getting very irritated with people - especially the ones in the "suburbs" (as people apparently now self-define). 

I hate conflict and go to great lengths to avoid it. Unless something is really a matter of principle, I would rather walk away.  

So it is rare for me to get angry, but it seems I am not the only one. Many people have admitted that they will have significantly fewer friends after the lockdown ends.  

I understand that we all bring our own experiences to the table.

The medical worker who is exposed daily to the virus; the businesswoman who has to close her business after 50 years; the wife who has lost her husband to the virus; the scientist who has to look at the epidemic with a clinical eye; the investment manager who is seeing his portfolio shrinking - will all have very different perspectives on the epidemic and how it should be managed.  

I have no problem with people expressing their frustrations and exasperation with this new reality that Covid-19 has created.

I also understand the fear people are facing as their income diminishes or disappears completely. 

In my own case, a huge proportion of my income comes from public speaking and engagements, which will not be an option for a long time. 

However, I have been horrified at the barely concealed callousness and racism in some of the arguments people use.  

One example is about "herd immunity" (because everyone is "mos" an expert now). Time and time again I hear people argue that lockdown should be lifted since we need herd immunity.

Gypsyamber D’Souza and David Dowdy (infections disease experts at Johns Hopkins), say that, depending on how infectious the disease is, between 50% and 90% of people need to contract a disease to get some form of effective herd immunity.

In Covid-19’s case it is generally accepted that it should be around 70%.  

In our country of 55 million people that would mean 38.5 million people would have to get the disease.

According to international experience about 20% of those  - so 7.7 million people - would have to be hospitalised.

Of those it is estimated that up to 50% - or 3.8 million people - might need ICU facilities (we only have just over 5 000 ICU beds in the country).

With a 1% to 2% fatality rate (again from international experience) this would mean somewhere between 385 000 and 770 000 people would have to die.  

When I ask people who in their family they would be willing to sacrifice - they look at me shocked.

"Well, we will be fine" they usually respond. True, but that raises the question: "Who are you then suggesting should die?"