I agree with you that most people only need reading glasses — or more precisely computer glasses, which are typically set to focus at 20-24 inches rather than 16 inches as is common for reading glasses.

However, I think you are understating the problems posed by other conditions. The prevalence of cataracts by age 64 is in the neighborhood of 15-20%.

https://www.nei.nih.gov/learn-about-eye-health/outreach-camp...

It's a good bet there are some people reading this who have been treated for cataracts.

> you say 'some people have flesh eating brain viruses or prion diseases'.

Dismissive attitudes like this among the visually acute are one reason website accessibility is generally so poor.

> The prevalence of cataracts by age 64 is in the neighborhood of 15-20%.

But what is the lower bound where it starts to get that common, is the question? Does it affect people in their careers that often? probably not.

>Dismissive attitudes like this among the visually acute are one reason website accessibility is generally so poor.

Sorry you disliked my analogy but it has nothing to do with website accessibility, merely the way you structured your argument/post in reply to my reasonable response of 'get glasses' to jumping to macular degeneration.

> But what is the lower bound where it starts to get that common, is the question?

This data is available at the NIH link I posted earlier, which breaks things down into 5 year spans.

The lower bound is 10%, since that's the prevalence by age 59.

> Does it affect people in their careers that often? probably not.

The data makes this assertion obviously wrong. A huge number of people get cataracts during their working years.

Fortunately, surgery to treat cataracts has a 95% success rate. Unfortunately, it's not 100% (and anecdotally I know multiple individuals in the lucky 5% whose vision has not improved after cataract surgery.)