3 ms·
>> i think it's clear in retrospect that most of the interventions in the face of the pandemic were based on profit and scant science Lock-downs weren't in the
by bruce511 3mo ago
>> i think it's clear in retrospect that most of the interventions in the face of the pandemic were based on profit and scant science
Lock-downs weren't in the service of profit. The vast majority of businesses, big and small, were hurt (many fatally) by lock downs.
And yes, there was scant science involved. Almost all interventions were on a "best guess" basis. Govts around the world had to make very big decisions with no science at all. Anthropologists can dissect the data for decades to come. Govt response, but equally population responses will help guide future decision makers.
On the face of it, countries where lockdowns were adopted (by the population) typically had lower death rates, but that's somewhat anecdotal at this point.
Yes, vaccine development was hasty. Partly because very large studies were easy to setup. Yes some drug companies made profits. Yes unvaccinated people still died. Yes we dont know if the vaccines have generational level side effects.
All things considered I think we came out of it pretty well.
- synecdoche 3mo agoFor profit by those who it benefited, namely medical companies who made the so called vaccine. Only by changing and relaxing the long standing criteria for what constitutes a vaccine.
- Jedd 3mo agoIn what way are they not a vaccine?
- gregoryyy 3mo agoThe definition of vaccine was broadened to include mRNA technologies.
- dionian 3mo agoBefore 2020, vaccines referred to things like attenuated viruses - you were basically being given a small weakened dose of the actual pathogen to prime your immune system. mRNA shots are a different animal and they are quite new.
- Volundr 3mo agoFar be it from me to doubt a stranger on the Internet, but can you point out any medical textbook or dictionary written pre-2020 that limits the definition of "vaccine" to "attenuated viruses"?
- Izkata 3mo agoThis is the dictionary people were pointing at when it happened: 2021-01-18: https://web.archive.org/web/20210118193104/https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vaccine https://web.archive.org/web/20210118193104/https://www.merri... 2021-01-26: https://web.archive.org/web/20210126065143/https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vaccine https://web.archive.org/web/20210126065143/https://www.merri...
- Jedd 3mo agoI was sure that pre-2020 - going back 40y or so prior - VLP's were also generally regarded as coming under the umbrella term 'vaccine'.
- danaris 3mo agoIt's not "no science at all". Science understands how pandemics act in general quite well, and that informed the early responses. Where you see the lack of scientific backing in the early responses is things like the recommendations to wash hands very thoroughly and use hand sanitizer constantly—this was from when it was thought that COVID might have spread through surface contact, before we understood that it was airborne. (Of course, the other aspect that shows the lack of scientific backing, that is more about profit, is how even now, there's no real push to upgrade our institutional ventilation systems. That would've made a huge difference not just for COVID, but for many other pathogens, and even just pollution and allergens...but it would cost institutions with buildings worldwide a lot of money, so we can't have that...)