3 ms·

The blog article has a great picture showing comparative outcomes in the over-60 population with the advent of vaccines. Now that is an example of a visible eff

The blog article has a great picture showing comparative outcomes in the over-60 population with the advent of vaccines. Now that is an example of a visible effect. What the article leaves unexplored is what policies actually are effective. It's clearly not blanket lockdowns the way they were applied in most Western countries. But does limiting access to retirement homes change mortality and if so what's the best way to do it? If the overall answer is changing behavior at the micro scale for the entire population, what's the best way to do that?

morpheos137 6y ago
Clearly covid-19 is spread via a similar mode to other respiratory disease, i.e. close personal contact for a certain amount of time. Thus the best way to mitigate population morbidity until vaccine development would have been for the most at risk people to stay at come. Covid appears to by a normal respiratory virus, e.g. like a common cold, that for some people, particularly those with metabolic disease, i.e. diabetes, causes an exaggerated inflammatory reaction which results in ARDS and clotting and death in some cases. For those without metabolic disease or obesity and a few other risk factors covid is really not a serious disease in most cases. My opinion is that healthy people under the age of 50 could have lived and worked as normal this past year without much increased mortality. Those at high risk should have had the option to voluntarily isolate. Even for an 80 year old, a year of isolation may not be worth avoiding perhaps a 5% risk of death.