Rest assured, the lockdowns will be lifted as soon as we eliminate Covid.
We now know that the vaccines widely available (at least those used in the US, Israel, the UK) have waning effectiveness, likely requiring periodic boosters.
We also know those vaccines are non-sterilizing, meaning it is at least possible for fully vaccinated individuals to contract and transmit the virus.
Even assuming vaccine mandates in perpetuity, and widespread compliance, there will presumably be some overlap of "lapsed effectiveness" in the population between boosters. We literally don't have the capacity to administer boosters to all 200 million American adults exactly at the same instant, or even in the same month. Nor do we know for sure how long the effectiveness window lasts, or whether that may vary between individuals or type of vaccine.
How exactly are we going to "eliminate" covid, given this reality? Many Americans are terrified that the goal is "elimination" of the virus. Similar to the War on Terror, wherein we did a tremendous amount of collateral damage endlessly chasing an unattainable ideal.
Do you regularly interact with white-tailed deer in confined spaces?
> We now know that the vaccines widely available (at least those used in the US, Israel, the UK) have waning effectiveness, likely requiring periodic boosters.
What's wrong with a vaccine needing boosters? Many do.
> We also know those vaccines are non-sterilizing, meaning it is at least possible for fully vaccinated individuals to contract and transmit the virus.
Even more reason for people to be vaccinated. It keeps them out of the hospital.
Even assuming vaccine mandates in perpetuity, and widespread compliance, there will presumably be some overlap of "lapsed effectiveness" in the population between boosters. We literally don't have the capacity to administer boosters to all 200 million American adults exactly at the same instant, or even in the same month.
> Even assuming vaccine mandates in perpetuity, and widespread compliance, there will presumably be some overlap of "lapsed effectiveness" in the population between boosters.
Lapsed effectiveness isn't something that prohibits us from containing the virus
> We literally don't have the capacity to administer boosters to all 200 million American adults exactly at the same instant, or even in the same month.
It's honestly pretty sad that you think we couldn't do this. Have Americans really gotten that lazy?
> How exactly we are going to "eliminate" covid, given this reality? Many Americans are terrified that the goal is "elimination" of the virus. Similar to the War on Terror, wherein we did a tremendous amount of collateral damage chasing an endless, unattainable ideal.
I'm not sure what to say to this. "We don't care to contain it, therefore its' impossible to contain"?
You do realize that people eat deer? And other livestock? Is it not a leading hypothesis that the origin of COVID-19 was an animal market? If it exists in the surrounding environment that's not "elimination". There will always be a risk of an outbreak.
> It's honestly pretty sad that you think we couldn't do this. Have Americans really gotten that lazy?
Yes? Is that not obvious? Though, not the point I'm making.
> I'm not sure what to say to this. "We don't care to contain it, therefore its' impossible to contain"?
You've interpreted my comment precisely backwards. Try this:
"It's impossible to contain, therefore we should approach it as a harm mitigation problem, rather than a candidate for 'elimination', through vaccination and early treatment, not dystopian lockdowns and restrictions"
Can you name another respiratory virus we've been able to completely eliminate? Any coronaviruses? Flu? Common cold? The ones I'm aware of are endemic.
How many people are eating raw deer? Do you have evidence of spread of covid-19 from deer to people?
> "It's impossible to contain, therefore we should approach it as a harm mitigation problem, rather than a candidate for 'elimination', through vaccination, not dystopian lockdowns and restrictions"
Why not both, (as long as you don't include the word 'dystopian' which is clearly just an emotional word). Vaccination and restrictions can work together to address the pandemic.
If you're implying mandatory vaccinations, sure. But when you've got a percentage of the population not willing to be vaccinated, if that percentage of the population is high enough to overwhelm our hospitals, restrictions make sense.
Tell me you don't hunt without telling me you don't hunt. Typically, after killing an animal, you skin it and hang it to drain before cutting it into steaks and cooking it. Similar to what happens in a wet market.
> If you're implying mandatory vaccinations, sure.
I'm not. At-risk populations will make the right decisions for themselves. Even republicans have high vaccination rates above a certain age. To any extent that this isn't happening, more education is the way to go.
Remember: the vaccines are about preventing serious illness. Not eliminating the virus.
As for hospital capacity, it's interesting how vaccine mandates are drastically exacerbating this issue, given how many frontline health care workers, who are largely naturally immune, are being fired or walking off the job due to these mandates.
Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. We largely do have physical capacity. We even have the ability to spin up more than is current online. Our bottleneck is the supply of medical professionals themselves.
Yes, and these medical professionals take a long time to train, hence why we care about hospital capacity.
thatsthejoke.jpg