4 ms·
You can qualify a lot of F’d up policy just by saying “it’s not about you, it’s about everyone!” When we were dealing with a completely and utterly unknown vir
by SllX 5y ago
You can qualify a lot of F’d up policy just by saying “it’s not about you, it’s about everyone!”
When we were dealing with a completely and utterly unknown virus for which we had no information, no effective responses, no useful therapies or treatments, no real understanding of how it spread, no vaccines, and not even a clear idea of where community spread already happened, taking some extreme measures in response to a pandemic made sense.
We now have much better information than we had plus vaccines faster than we ever had vaccines in response to a new pandemic before plus the resilience of the COVID survivors, both known survivors and unknown survivors, and useful therapies and treatments.
The risk calculus has changed and so must the response shift from the public to the private: from government to individual.
- pfg 5y ago> The risk calculus has changed and so must the response shift from the public to the private: from government to individual. I don't think it has shifted all that much in many countries. Yes, we have vaccines and better treatment. At the same time, vaccination rates aren't as high as they should be, plus we're dealing with a new variant that's more than twice as contagious and probably causes more severe cases. We're also dealing with waning immunity. I wouldn't go as far as saying these factors offset each other completely, but last year, we've had all kinds of non-pharmaceutical interventions in place (masks, contact restrictions). Many countries have now abolished these. I might buy the "individual choice" argument if negative effects were only felt by those choosing to not get vaccinated, not wear masks or similar, but once hospitals/ICUs overflow, other people suffer or die too.