3 ms·

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 t

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.