3 ms·

> There are ever present dangers that we just live with like the chances of getting in a car accident and dying, but we decide that these risks are low enough t

> There are ever present dangers that we just live with like the chances of getting in a car accident and dying, but we decide that these risks are low enough that we carry on normal life. Because there are no other (tenable) options for car accidents. If there was a vaccine you could take that would prevent you from being harmed in a car accident, and it was cheap (free even) and available, the expectations around car accidents would be quite a bit different.

specialp 5y ago
I don't believe I advocated for people not getting vaccinated. I am saying should we keep having "lockdowns"? I do think having lockdowns perpetually is not a tenable option when there is no end in sight. Vaccines when compared to cars are the seatbelt equivalent. They do not cause economic and social harm, and save a lot of lives. People should indeed get vaccinated and most are. Lockdowns are equivalent to restricting automobile travel or lowering speed to a extremely low limit. Sure they would be fine if there were a blizzard and lots of people were crashing. All one can do is wait for the snow to melt and then it would only be a temporary disruption. But in the case of lockdowns there's no chance they are going to end the spread of COVID, they just slow it at best. And they have a very large cost, and it has been a long time. It would be as if the temporary restrictions to save lives during the blizzard were persisted when an ice age occurred.
- cloverich 5y ago
  Lockdowns aren't meant to end the spread of COVID, only to limit it until people can get vaccinated. Vaccine's are the end game. As discussed in the article, if people aren't willing to get vaccinated and gov't unwilling to force, then letting it spread (not lockdowns) is the other option. Assuming people want to get vaccinated in places where the vaccine is not yet abundant (most countries), then lockdown's until supply rises could make sense. Nobody is advocating for permanent lockdowns with no end game. The more general concern of Delta (or any variant) is that the existing vaccine won't work against it, and / or the continued spread will lead to _more_ variants. Its unfortunately an artifical problem in the US, since there's plenty of vaccine supply.
shireboy 5y ago
I've actually wrestled with this exact analogy as a way to measure the risks myself. There are options for car accidents - a "vaccine" you can take as it were. Wear a seatbelt. I think it's a good analogy. Some people don't like to wear them, but in general those that do are at lower risk and accept the remaining risk that they hurt or maim themselves or others - even children and elderly. Those that don't are at higher risk. The question I wrestle with is if vaccines are the seatbelt or masks or both. In the end, that's what all the drama is: how we measure risk vs reward (perceived or actual) and handle it as individuals or society. Since this is a new and evolving risk, we struggle to put it into place relative to other "known" risks like traffic accidents, smoking, unhealthy eating, etc.
- cloverich 5y ago
  I think masks are the better analogy to seatbelts. It reduces your risk of injury and death, protects the other occupants in the vehicle (from your flying body), but only to a certain extent and offer no protection in various scenarios. In general its difficult to find a good analogy for vaccine's anywhere because they are a nearly miraculous tool. I think you are right about the unknown risk, but a subset of the drama is certainly a rejection of things like masks and vaccines given they are low effort / low risk / high reward vs an unknown level of risk (mutating virus).

specialp 5y ago

I don't believe I advocated for people not getting vaccinated. I am saying should we keep having "lockdowns"? I do think having lockdowns perpetually is not a tenable option when there is no end in sight. Vaccines when compared to cars are the seatbelt equivalent. They do not cause economic and social harm, and save a lot of lives. People should indeed get vaccinated and most are. Lockdowns are equivalent to restricting automobile travel or lowering speed to a extremely low limit. Sure they would be fine if there were a blizzard and lots of people were crashing. All one can do is wait for the snow to melt and then it would only be a temporary disruption. But in the case of lockdowns there's no chance they are going to end the spread of COVID, they just slow it at best. And they have a very large cost, and it has been a long time. It would be as if the temporary restrictions to save lives during the blizzard were persisted when an ice age occurred.

cloverich 5y ago
Lockdowns aren't meant to end the spread of COVID, only to limit it until people can get vaccinated. Vaccine's are the end game. As discussed in the article, if people aren't willing to get vaccinated and gov't unwilling to force, then letting it spread (not lockdowns) is the other option. Assuming people want to get vaccinated in places where the vaccine is not yet abundant (most countries), then lockdown's until supply rises could make sense. Nobody is advocating for permanent lockdowns with no end game. The more general concern of Delta (or any variant) is that the existing vaccine won't work against it, and / or the continued spread will lead to _more_ variants. Its unfortunately an artifical problem in the US, since there's plenty of vaccine supply.

shireboy 5y ago

I've actually wrestled with this exact analogy as a way to measure the risks myself. There are options for car accidents - a "vaccine" you can take as it were. Wear a seatbelt. I think it's a good analogy. Some people don't like to wear them, but in general those that do are at lower risk and accept the remaining risk that they hurt or maim themselves or others - even children and elderly. Those that don't are at higher risk. The question I wrestle with is if vaccines are the seatbelt or masks or both. In the end, that's what all the drama is: how we measure risk vs reward (perceived or actual) and handle it as individuals or society. Since this is a new and evolving risk, we struggle to put it into place relative to other "known" risks like traffic accidents, smoking, unhealthy eating, etc.

cloverich 5y ago
I think masks are the better analogy to seatbelts. It reduces your risk of injury and death, protects the other occupants in the vehicle (from your flying body), but only to a certain extent and offer no protection in various scenarios. In general its difficult to find a good analogy for vaccine's anywhere because they are a nearly miraculous tool. I think you are right about the unknown risk, but a subset of the drama is certainly a rejection of things like masks and vaccines given they are low effort / low risk / high reward vs an unknown level of risk (mutating virus).