First, you've spent the last 4 years telling us the walls were closing in on Trump. The only one who thinks you've got credibility here is you. That's fine. For you.
I'm not taking anyone to court. I'm pointing out evidence that could lead in a particular direction. You don't like it? Frankly I don't give a shit. You came into my thread to whine, not the other way around.
I don't think COVID is as serious as it is being made out to be. Because, as I've stated numerous times, the cost to doing what we are doing to the world vs. what we should be doing to protect those who are vulnerable is clearly disproportionate. That's my issue.
Poor policy and "experts" on what is crappy theory mislabeled as "Science" cause flawed policy to be passed that, aided by a complicit media intent on making Trump look bad at any cost in an election year caused hardship and loss for millions that did not have to have that happen. All because of sheep like you who tout party line instead of examining data.
It is annoying to see the lack of scientiific consenous on an issue that should be cut and dried. What ever happened to the “Scientific Method” and scientific reasoning? It seems science has become completely politicized as seen with the climate change debate, if smoking is bad for you, or what really causes heart disease.
As such, what can we do? The answer is to research the issues, weigh the evidence, draw our own conclusions, and take appropriate actions based on those conclusions. In short, we need to think for ourselves instead of relying on media sources that often has an agenda, whether it is politically related or sublety marketing a product.
It has been established Covid-19 has unique characteristics that are particularly harmful to certain groups of people, including the elderly and others who have a certain immune system profile. The published CFR is .6%, with 14 to 15% of victims having severe outcomes, suggesting Covid-19 is significantly more serious than other influenza like viruses. Further, all or almost all countries are taking this virus at least somewhat seriously as PPE and self isolation policies indicate.
Covid-19 is now endemic and has spread among other mammals and avian populations, including pets. Although the scientific community is currently arguing over definitions of what consitutes a bona fide mutation into a new strain as well as relative Covid mutation rates, it seems to be safe to say each season a new Covid mutation will gain prominence.
Prior policy has included attempting to isolate people through partial shutdowns. These efforts have resulted in economic, fiscal, and social stress, but did not stop the spread of Covid.
Vaccines with high claimed effectiveness rates have recently become available. However, historically influenza vaccines often have below 50% effectiveness, especially for older patients, and are only effective for a season. A season that typically peaks by November to December in the Northern hemisphere, if I’m recalling correctly.
Given the above considerations, what is appropriate policy? The following is a brief summary of general policy “Stances”:
1. Do nothing and accept the full impact of Covid upon our population. This stance involves accepting undefined risk and long term costs associated with higher death rates and severe outcomes. Further, this stance in the US, with it’s particulary mobile population presents reinfection risks to other countries who adopt different policies, possibly resulting in long term diplomacy related stresses.
2. Require proper use of PPE and other safe practices in public or in other situations regarding large gatherings of people. While PPE and other safe practices are not completely effective against Covid transmission, they will reduce the transmission rate and help us to possibly retain decent reserve capacity of available medical services. About half the population in the US have serious objections to the use of PPE, seemingly related to Trump’s outspoken position on the issue, reducing potential effectiveness of this policy.
3. Require Covid vaccinations. Given the likely low effectiveness of any Covid vaccine, its temporary nature, side effects, and the systemic distrust of large portions of the population, any vaccine requirements will likely be meet with resistance, including “Civil disobedience”.
4. Lockdown, travel restrictions, and closed borders among all countries for at least 4 to 6 weeks. I group all these actions into one stance, because this would be the only way to have a chance to decisively control the spread of Covid and to maintain an equal burden of such a policy among all the countries of the world. While this stance give us the best chance to eliminate Covid, the fact Covid is now endemic means likely reinfection will still occur from non-compliance and other sources. The economic and social impact of such a stance would likely be extreme, quite possibly more costly than doing nothing, while still having the risk of reinfection.
All in all, it appears our best stance is to require the proper use of PPE and other safe practices where groups of people gather. It would likely greatly help if Trump reversed his position on this serious issue.
