4 ms·

The claims in that article are a bit tenuous - such as 'we have no way to control the spread of delta', when in fact we do - isolation, quarantine, reduced trav

by Jedd 5y ago

The claims in that article are a bit tenuous - such as 'we have no way to control the spread of delta', when in fact we do - isolation, quarantine, reduced travel, contact tracing, masks, social distancing, vaccination, etc. A year ago we didn't have a vaccine, and now more than half the population of most western nations are vaccinated. The idea that we have no alternative but to 'surrender to delta' because it's inevitable that 'literally everyone will get it' is depressingly pessimistic. We can apply the above remedies, while developing and distributing booster shots that cover delta. Similar applies to various other VOI/VOC's on (or not yet on) the radar.

nradov 5y ago
Apparently you didn't actually read the linked article, or watch the original video on which it's based. Prof. Pollard never suggested surrendering. We should try to vaccinate as many people as possible. But other interventions like isolation, quarantine, reduced travel, masks, and social distancing are obviously not sustainable indefinitely. Most regular people in free societies won't tolerate them. So we'll have to eventually just accept the risks and move forward.
- Jedd 5y ago
  Thanks for the assumption, despite me reading the linked article (I preferred the Guardian's take on the issue, from the same day[0]). I did not watch the video on which it's based, of course, as time is finite. GP (and to an extent, Prof Pollard) are asserting these things based on a number of assumptions -- pessimism (perhaps justified) about the callous thoughtlessness of many ersatz citizens, the current set of vaccines are all we shall have available into the future, delivery mechanisms will continue to require injections (slow, difficult, discourages some non-trivial subset of the population), and will continue to not be available to younger children. If all those were true, then perhaps. Happily, not all those are true. Anyway, I was railing against the claim that 'literally everyone is going to get COVID' as an unavoidable future. I shall continue to rail. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/10/delta-variant-renders-herd-immunity-from-covid-mythical https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/10/delta-variant-...

by Jedd 5y ago

nradov 5y ago

Apparently you didn't actually read the linked article, or watch the original video on which it's based. Prof. Pollard never suggested surrendering. We should try to vaccinate as many people as possible. But other interventions like isolation, quarantine, reduced travel, masks, and social distancing are obviously not sustainable indefinitely. Most regular people in free societies won't tolerate them. So we'll have to eventually just accept the risks and move forward.

Jedd 5y ago
Thanks for the assumption, despite me reading the linked article (I preferred the Guardian's take on the issue, from the same day[0]). I did not watch the video on which it's based, of course, as time is finite. GP (and to an extent, Prof Pollard) are asserting these things based on a number of assumptions -- pessimism (perhaps justified) about the callous thoughtlessness of many ersatz citizens, the current set of vaccines are all we shall have available into the future, delivery mechanisms will continue to require injections (slow, difficult, discourages some non-trivial subset of the population), and will continue to not be available to younger children. If all those were true, then perhaps. Happily, not all those are true. Anyway, I was railing against the claim that 'literally everyone is going to get COVID' as an unavoidable future. I shall continue to rail. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/10/delta-variant-renders-herd-immunity-from-covid-mythical https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/10/delta-variant-...