Thoughts about the right practice of liturgy amidst this plague

Thoughts about the right practice of liturgy amidst this plague I'm no Martin Luther; I only have twelve theses, and they are, for the most part, decidedly unprotestant.

1. The Daily Office is awesome. I highly recommend it to all followers of Jesus.
2. The Daily Office is not and was never meant to be a substitute for the Eucharist and isn't and shouldn't be the principal celebration on Sundays. Insomuch as the church practiced that in years past, the church erred, failing to continue in the apostles' teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of the bread and the prayers.
3. The Holy Eucharist makes the one sacrifice of Christ offered once for all on the cross present here and now, interposing the passion, death, and resurrection of Christ between us and all the powers of darkness we face, both in our present time and at the hour of our death.
4. Lots of people have died. The church ought to be offering frequent requiem masses on their behalf.
5. Lots of people are sick. The church ought to be offering frequent healing masses on their behalf.
6. The faithful need the nourishment of the Body and Blood of Christ, ESPECIALLY in a time of disruption and crisis.
7. To be good stewards of the gift of life that God has given us, we must not spread deadly disease as we celebrate Eucharist and nourish people with Holy Communion.
8. Thus therefore the church must find a way both to safely celebrate Eucharist, now more than ever, and to safely nourish the faithful with Christ's Body and Blood, now more than ever. Eucharist is the gift the church has to offer to the world, both the living and the dead, and now is when we most need that gift.
9. The Anglican branch of the Church has always taught that if a person desires to receive communion but because of sickness is unable to eat and drink the Bread and Wine, the Celebrant is to assure that person that all the benefits of Communion are received, even though the Sacrament is not received with the mouth. Earlier Prayer Books said that such a person "doth eat and drink the Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ profitably to his soul's health, although he do not receive the Sacrament with his mouth." The church has always taught that this form of reception of the Body and Blood of Christ is real, and procures unto us the same innumerable benefits of Christ's passion, death, resurrection, and ascension as physically eating and drinking the bread and wine that become the Body and Blood of Christ.
10. I personally suspect that eating bread and drinking wine while prayerfully focusing on the spiritual reception of the Body and Blood of Christ would be a distraction from the spiritual reception of communion, but some might find physically receiving the accidents of bread and wine which have not been consecrated a helpful physical reminder of the accidents of the Body and Blood of Christ that they are accustomed to receiving. While this bread and wine is not itself the Body and Blood of Christ, if spiritual communion is real (and it is), and the sensory experience of bread and wine excite the memory in such a way as to help the believer focus on the reality of spiritual communion, I cannot see how this can be anything but a good thing so long as accompanied by appropriate catechesis.
11. While many dismiss "remote consecration," whereby a priest attempts to consecrate bread and wine physically present in the homes of the faithful as "not a thing," I am slow to share that conclusion. I do not see it as necessary, as I believe that the steps outlined in 9 and 10 above should sufficiently, safely, and truly distribute communion to the faithful in this time of crisis. I also believe that "remote consecration" falls outside the tradition through which we have been promised that communion is a sure and certain means of grace. However I believe that every celebration of the Holy Eucharist is a miracle that God chooses to effect, as God has promised to do. Could God make the Body and Blood of Christ present under other circumstances than those within the Eucharistic tradition in response to our prayers? Of course God can, and I fail to see why it would be bad for people to ask God if God were willing to do so. Furthermore, I am more inclined to believe that God would answer such prayers than to believe that God would deny them. So while I believe that "remote consecration" is unnecessary and beyond what God has promised, I don't believe it is inappropriate to pray to request it, and I would not be astonished were God to answer such prayers in the affirmative. I do think ministers would err should they proclaim that such an action is remote consecration, but would need to teach that it is beyond what God has promised and yet we pray that it might be remote consecration, a miracle God might choose to undertake in extraordinary times to feed God's faithful people. That said, given that eating and drinking the Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ profitably to the soul's health, although one doth not receive the Sacrament with the mouth is both within what God has promised to do and also entirely feasible under present circumstances, it seems far preferable to rely on the promised miracle rather than to pray for another beyond the promises.
12. I propose that what each of our congregations ought to be doing on each Sunday and feast day and on the various occasions when the Church is compelled to offer her greatest prayer for particular intentions (most notably for the sick and for the dead), the faithful ought to gather by videoconference call or whatever other communication technology allows them to pray together while being safely physically apart. The presider leads the appropriate opening prayers and invitations to prayer, the people make their prayers and responses, the lectors read the lessons and psalm, the deacon (or priest) proclaims the Gospel, the preacher delivers the sermon, the people recite the creed, the intercessor leads the prayers of the people, the people offer their prayers, the deacon (or priest) invites the people to confess their sins, the people recite the confession, the priest declares absolution, the peace is shared, and the presider leads the people in the Eucharistic Prayer. The elements are physically present with the presider. The people pray as the presider leads and make their great Amen at the conclusion of the prayer, then, after the Lord's Prayer and the fraction and whatever devotions are appropriate to the rite, the presider invites the people to communion. Because great illness prevents us from physically distributing communion, the presider reads the people the rubric at the bottom of page 457 of the prayer book that if a person desires to receive communion but because of sickness is unable to eat and drink the Bread and Wine, the Celebrant is to assure that person that all the benefits of Communion are received, even though the Sacrament is not received with the mouth. Then the words of administration are said and the elements displayed. The people receive the Body and Blood of Christ profitably to their souls' health, although any who are not quarantined with the presider do not receive the Sacrament with their mouths. Then the people pray the post communion prayer and are blessed and dismissed.

I understand that not everyone agrees with me on all these points, but I wish that every member of the church universal did agree with me in this case. Those who know me know how rarely I am apt to assert that I am right and those who disagree with me are wrong, especially on matters of religion (thus the name of this blog!). Having listened to and read many arguments about how the church ought to be at prayer right now, I have never been more strongly moved to believe that these points with the possible exceptions of numbers ten and eleven, I am not wrong, and those who disagree with me are.