Everything after your first "but" contradicts what comes before it. Should people who are at more risk get priority? Because if they should, then yes, people with regular immune systems SHOULD in fact just suck it up and go inside until there are enough curbside slots available for everyone. Then there won't be a use for a site like this and those healthy people can book their curbside slots on the grocery stores' websites like normal.

This site and others like it just guarantee that vulnerable people MUST use these sites to even have a chance to get curbside. I guarantee there are those who are not savvy enough, and young tech-savvy people who know how to use these services will use curbside while older, more vulnerable, and less tech-savvy people must go in. I feel bad using a site like this because even though my wife is in a vulnerable group, I know others are worse off and don't have the know-how to use this tool. I want them to have a chance.

You can't say that "people who are more at risk should get priority" AND say that _everyone_ should be doing the same thing as them. If everyone is a priority, nobody is. Yes, some healthy people with good immune systems DO need to take some risks in lieu of those who are more likely to die if they take the same risks.

And spare me the platitude at the beginning of your comment. If you did sympathize, you wouldn't've posted something so tone-deaf.