4 ms·
At this point, Covid is with us to stay. The authors are clearly right about that. But I'm not sure that has the policy implications they think it does. No one
by mjirv 5y ago
At this point, Covid is with us to stay. The authors are clearly right about that.
But I'm not sure that has the policy implications they think it does. No one in the US (or outside of Australia/NZ/parts of Asia) have really been _trying_ to eradicate Covid.
But at some point, we will have to figure out what the goal is of our Covid policies.
At first (Spring 2020) the goal was to "flatten the curve" i.e. prevent hospitals from being overwhelmed. We largely did that.
Next, the goal was to postpone as many infections as possible until vaccines were widely available. They are.
So the question is: what comes next? Perpetual restrictions and lockdowns every time there is a flare-up to try and prevent as many (mostly unvaccinated) deaths and hospitalizations as possible? Or do we just accept that everyone is going to get it eventually and we've done all we can to minimize the risk (to people who choose vaccination)?
- rytcio 5y agoI mean the outcome was easily predicted when everyone was focused on number of cases rather than hospitalizations or deaths. If we only focus on "cases" (which is a questionable number), then yes we'll be in a perpetual state of lockdowns and restrictions until people get fed up
- unearth3d 5y agoMedieval Europe had periods like this for decades at a time. Despite supposed modernness many have a pre-Medieval mindset. This is a 10 year project (and some level of permanent change globally).