> We need to super-nova this thing
Is there a precedent for "us" doing this? Surely some pandemics have "super-nova'ed" themselves, but having "us" encourage faster and wider spread as policy seems risky and unusual.
Is there a precedent for "us" doing this? Surely some pandemics have "super-nova'ed" themselves, but having "us" encourage faster and wider spread as policy seems risky and unusual.
I appreciate the need for govts to be seen to do something "new variant? quick, lock the borders..", but as data emerges that this is "the one to get" there's no need to inhibit the economy in the name of public health, when that inhibition leads to a worse, not better outcome.
Our best case scenario right now is that a) the virus spreads really fast, and b) it's not lethal (or at least no more lethal than anything else in life.)
Ultimately we all need to build up immunity from this thing - whether that's via vaccines or contractions everyone is free to take their pick. but 5 years from now we'll all have anti-bodies for it one way or the other...
Do you know any other diseases where there's virtually no risk to young children but very high risk to the elderly?