4 ms·
One judges decisions based on available information. All the then available information indicated that mass vaccination was the best means of reducing transmiss
by blamestross 4y ago
One judges decisions based on available information. All the then available information indicated that mass vaccination was the best means of reducing transmission, especially because such large portions of the population were unwilling (or unable) to lock down to prevent spread. Even then, it still has been shown to prevent spread, just not as effectively as hoped.
From a public health perspective mass vaccination was definitely the right approach.
- mwint 4y agoCertainly one cannot judge a decision by its outcome, but we can perhaps learn something if the skeptics we were banning from social media ended up being correct. Whether they were following proper reasoning or not, if they were right it’d be good to take a step back and figure out if anything in the “proper reasoning” system needs adjusted.
- blamestross 4y agoThat I agree with. A lot of bad assumptions were revealed, but not the ones I think you are alluding to. - If the market and the government disagree on the value of human lives, the market wins. (Basically the government should just consign more people to die, especially vulnerable populations to avoid drama) - A nontrivial portion of the population reacts to government intervention with spiteful noncompliance (we need to be using a softer and more coercive hand than 'authority says X is the best plan') - If we have to fall back on socialized medicine whenever there is a crisis, maybe we should just do it all the time. - There will be more pandemics, more often, until the forces permitting them change. As somebody who immunocompromised, this pandemic taught me exactly how little my life is valued by my civilization and government.