3 ms·

The author’s point is that by now, something at least 50% of the US population has had the virus and 15% have had the vaccine. And that for some reason, the off

The author’s point is that by now, something at least 50% of the US population has had the virus and 15% have had the vaccine. And that for some reason, the official sources are just putting their hands on their ears and saying “LALALALALALALALALA” at the mere mention of herd immunity. There is a resistance to accepting that this pandemic is soon going to end the way that just about every pandemic in the entirety of human history and pre-history has ended: enough people have had the virus and developed some level of immunity to prevent pandemic-level spread. The only difference is that we are giving the natural process a little boost through vaccination (but not by much since we got a late start because we refused to do challenge trials, so the vaccine that was done in May was not distributed until December because more tedious and less accurate non-challenge trials had to be done). I think there will be a hesitancy to accept this because lockdowns[0] and universal vaccination, reasonable ideas, have moved on from being points of pragmatic policy to being points of political dogma, such that they are resistant even to changing facts. And after being fed the nonsensical “if it saves even one life” line by their political heroes, it will be difficult for many people to accept that the real calculation involves accepting some “advanced” deaths (a strange concept because old folks on their death bed succumbing to the next common cold are usually not considered to have died earlier than they “should have”) for the sake of getting on with life, just like we do every year with all sorts of diseases in circulation. It also represents of failure by the public health officials and experts. Because the vaccine was needlessly delayed, not many more lives were saved than if the virus was just allowed to run its course sometime last summer (once we discovered that ventilators were actively harmful in many cases) along with some basic precautions for vulnerable populations. We were held back by rigid medical ethics requirements banning challenge trials. So while individual cities could have hundreds or thousands of new cases per day, deliberately infecting a few hundred healthy people for the purpose of testing the vaccine was PROHIBITED. We lost half a year to this, trillions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of lives, and millions of livelihoods. All because we let a bunch of medical ethics theorists in ivory towers told us that we couldn't run common-sense low-risk trials.

sgt101 6y ago
When you say "the vaccine was done in May" do you include building the manufacturing system that would create it and put it into a supply chain? This is a physical thing, not a website, scaling a website to cope with 100m requests is helluva job - scaling a physical product to 100m items is much, much, much harder. Especially when it is a medical product. I think you have forgotten this small detail. Another detail : yes we found that ventilators were harmful, but we also found that other forms of assisted breathing like high nasal flow oxygen were effective. Additionally we found that giving steroids was effective. There are other treatments coming online now in addition to this - so when we look at delaying the pandemic and the benefit there of we need to understand that the survival rate for patients has improved over that time. You seem to have forgotten this small detail. When we talk about this as a natural process in a population and allowing it to happen the people it happens to in the summer rather than the winter live 6 months less. They may have written a book or a play or helped their grandchildren become the people they need to be in that time span. You seem to have forgotten this small detail.
- throwaway8581 6y ago
  The vaccine could have been rolled out to the most vulnerable groups much sooner than it was. If you vaccinate only those groups (and the vaccine works), you prevent the vast majority deaths. >When we talk about this as a natural process in a population and allowing it to happen the people it happens to in the summer rather than the winter live 6 months less. They may have written a book or a play or helped their grandchildren become the people they need to be in that time span. As for your last point, that's not how it works. To the extent that the disease runs its course through the population anyway, then there's also people aging (and infirming) INTO the vulnerable group too, who would have lived if they caught it in the summer but upon catching it six-months later die. Another way to look at it is that it's not any better or worse that a pandemic hits one year or the other (putting aside population growth). A flu pandemic in 1905 is no better than a flu pandemic in 1904. It just kills a different set of people. And actually, by extending the period where the virus is in pandemic circulation, and to the extent that it will spread through the population anyway, you probably kill more people by stretching the pandemic out. Virus survivors die for other reasons, "wasting" their immunity, and like I said above, more people become newly vulnerable to the virus.

sgt101 6y ago

When you say "the vaccine was done in May" do you include building the manufacturing system that would create it and put it into a supply chain? This is a physical thing, not a website, scaling a website to cope with 100m requests is helluva job - scaling a physical product to 100m items is much, much, much harder. Especially when it is a medical product. I think you have forgotten this small detail. Another detail : yes we found that ventilators were harmful, but we also found that other forms of assisted breathing like high nasal flow oxygen were effective. Additionally we found that giving steroids was effective. There are other treatments coming online now in addition to this - so when we look at delaying the pandemic and the benefit there of we need to understand that the survival rate for patients has improved over that time. You seem to have forgotten this small detail. When we talk about this as a natural process in a population and allowing it to happen the people it happens to in the summer rather than the winter live 6 months less. They may have written a book or a play or helped their grandchildren become the people they need to be in that time span. You seem to have forgotten this small detail.

throwaway8581 6y ago
The vaccine could have been rolled out to the most vulnerable groups much sooner than it was. If you vaccinate only those groups (and the vaccine works), you prevent the vast majority deaths. >When we talk about this as a natural process in a population and allowing it to happen the people it happens to in the summer rather than the winter live 6 months less. They may have written a book or a play or helped their grandchildren become the people they need to be in that time span. As for your last point, that's not how it works. To the extent that the disease runs its course through the population anyway, then there's also people aging (and infirming) INTO the vulnerable group too, who would have lived if they caught it in the summer but upon catching it six-months later die. Another way to look at it is that it's not any better or worse that a pandemic hits one year or the other (putting aside population growth). A flu pandemic in 1905 is no better than a flu pandemic in 1904. It just kills a different set of people. And actually, by extending the period where the virus is in pandemic circulation, and to the extent that it will spread through the population anyway, you probably kill more people by stretching the pandemic out. Virus survivors die for other reasons, "wasting" their immunity, and like I said above, more people become newly vulnerable to the virus.