But what's the end goal? Do we keep lockdown restrictions forever? The case fatality rate for a vaccinated population is really low. There must be an acceptable level - after all we don't lock down for other endemic viruses which also have non-zero CFRs. What is it? Have we reached it?
Public acceptance of perpetual lockdowns, or at least at-will lockdowns, probably is the goal. People get more tolerant of authoritarian governments when there's a high prevalence of infectious disease. Governments seeking re-election pushing a narrative that the danger from infectious diseases is high while also being seen to be 'doing something' is likely a self-reinforcing dynamic.
To be honest, until two weeks ago the official narrative has been that we'll all go back to normal once everyone has taken the vaccine. Unfortunately, the virus has thrown a spanner into the works. This wasn't planned.
Maybe you remember way back at the very beginning that it was "two weeks to slow the spread"?
The narrative has always been we‘ll be back to normal in X weeks if we are all good little boys and girls and do what we‘re told. Unless of course some other really good reason to lockdown arises, like that single case in NZ.
By single case I assume you're referring the outbreak that has spread to 100+ cases in the last week (from transmission before the lockdown and associated households). If you use a country as an example, then please represent the situation there accurately.
Covid is like roaches, there's never just one. One case turns up, but meanwhile that individual infected dozens others who are not symptomatic yet. But with a lockdown the contagion spreads less quickly, and you can do contact tracing and isolate the affected people. Indeed, the headline from two days ago is "Delta outbreak spreading rapidly as cases jump"
Meanwhile at my regional institution the students are beginning to grumble. Let's go back online, they say, too many instructors cancel lecture because they are sick with covid and too many students can't attend class because they in bed with covid. That's what excess freedom looks like.
The acceptable level is pretty much defined by when the hospitals aren't falling over again.
If everyone would just get vaccinated, we'd be there.
Instead people are for whatever reason ignoring the risks of the virus, and if the rate of hospitalization in their age category is only 1 in 50, enough of them making that choice mean that 2% of them guessing wrong is knocking the hospital system over again.
Maybe without a vaccination card or other pass that you're ineligible for the vaccine you get triaged right back out the door. That would help the hospital capacity, encourage vaccination, etc but it will probably need to get a bit more morgue capacity ramped up. Easier to train for.
That's why I called it triage. You can give steroids and O2 for home consumption? I guess it depends on the seriousness, on average, of the other people who are unable to use the hospital's services because it's overloaded and what their mortality rate is vs the unvaccinated who show up and are given some reasonable treatment to try, but not a bed. Not an easy decision or calculation to come up with.
We'll have to have some restrictions in place for the highest-risk activities. I really wouldn't want to give introductory lectures in a room that seats 250 people and has been in use all day and then find out, like the Reverend Jackson, that the vaccine protection has worn off.
>I really wouldn't want to give introductory lectures in a room that seats 250 people and has been in use all day and then find out, like the Reverend Jackson, that the vaccine protection has worn off.
Ok then don't? No one is forcing you to go out.
Let everyone else make their own decisions. I'm kinda tired of the hypochondriacs forcing everyone else to do what they want. Everyone has access to the vaccine, they can stay in and mask all they want, they do not have to go near people. There's absolutely no reason to be locking down the rest of society. The only argument to keep these restrictions in place is if the hospitals get over capacity and that's not happening.
Additionally you need to provide a strategy that would stop this. Since apparently mass vaccination and locking down for nearly 2 years didn't help. Or you can keep supporting the same thing and hoping for different results.
I'm tired of prudes telling me I can't drink and drive. Let everyone make their own decisions. Everyone else can stay home or drive sober if they want, but we shouldn't prevent the rest of society from having fun!
I wasn't aware that you could pass drunkenness through the air with no symptoms. That's new to me.
Are you suggesting we should all be responsible for stopping other people from drunk driving and also stopping anyone from getting into a car with a drunk driver? Are you also attempting to suggest that everyone else get should have their drivers' license revoked for the few that are caught drunk driving? That's essentially what masking, forced vaccination, mandated passports is.
Might wanna find a new metaphor. I'm sure you think that was an intelligent comparison but it absolutely sucks. You're comparing something that would take a deliberate act to something that might or might not be happening passively to you.
I agree it's not a great metaphor, but my point is that "let everyone make their own decisions" isn't some end-all argument. All rules and laws in society are about not letting people do whatever they want for the benefit of society at large.
Also you're trying to appeal to emotion by framing mask wearing as some sort of punishment ("revoking" people's drivers licenses) vs a precaution (like wearing a seatbelt... or not driving drunk). Furthermore, people caught drunk driving DO get their licenses taken away.
>Also you're trying to appeal to emotion by framing mask wearing as some sort of punishment
That's because I do view it as a punishment. Maybe you like wearing a mask, I do not. I got vaccinated and stayed away from big events, masked etc. for 2 years. I did my part, I'm done.
Enough with this kindergarten level discipline. It's like punishing the entire class for the one kid that can't keep quiet. Yeah the noisy kid is an ass and should be quiet but the teacher is the one you should really be mad at.
I think the analogy is that there is a small percentage of our population that cannot drive a vehicle without dying and so everyone has to stay home and not drive in order to get rid of the .06% of of the population that will die driving on the road.
Everyone can make their own decisions, but can everyone give an introductory lecture? Perhaps the 250 attendees can decide if they want to be there in person or remotely, why would you remove that choice from the person giving the lecture?
And we are not talking about locking down the rest of society. That was the extreme end of the spectrum when we were trying to get it under control. The only place still with national lockdowns are NZ and Australia because they were able to contain and control the virus earlier on.
Sounds like you are equating your experience with everyone. Not everyone has access to the vaccine, not everyone is able to work remotely, some people have to interact with the public as part of their job. Perhaps try looking at things from the perspective of people who are less fortunate than yourself.
There is an underlying current of selfishness behind everything you say.
The only people who are being selfish are the people who insist the entire human population change their behavior in an extremely negative way for more than 1.6 years for a virus that we now have remarkably effective vaccines for that anybody at risk can take for free.
Sorry. It is selfish to ask people to continue to cower away in order to assuage peoples fear.
>Everyone can make their own decisions, but can everyone give an introductory lecture? Perhaps the 250 attendees can decide if they want to be there in person or remotely, why would you remove that choice from the person giving the lecture?
How am I removing that choice? Did I say anywhere they were not allowed to host it virtually if they chose to do so? The only one removing choices is the individual that decides they don't want anyone in person.
>Sounds like you are equating your experience with everyone. Not everyone has access to the vaccine, not everyone is able to work remotely, some people have to interact with the public as part of their job. Perhaps try looking at things from the perspective of people who are less fortunate than yourself.
Every reason you listed here only supports NOT locking down. Everyone in the US does have access to the vaccine. I am looking at it correctly, you're the one that wants people not to work by locking down everything. What's your solution? Wait until everyone gets it, which will never happen?
The irony in calling me the selfish one. I'm not making anyone do anything here. Exactly how is telling everyone they must do something not selfish? Anyone supporting more lockdowns/masking at this point is only doing it for themselves and no one else.
I have not proposed a lockdown in any of my comments. I think you are looking for an argument with someone who wants another lockdown. I have not seen anyone proposing a new lockdown and think that the majority of people in the UK would neither support another lockdown or even think it is necessary.
Literally the only country that should be considering a lockdown at this stage is New Zealand due to them being a great way to prevent spread if there are very few cases in the general population and the majority of people are unvaccinated. For everyone else the only realistic solution.is vaccination for as much of the population as possible.
>The only place still with national lockdowns are NZ and Australia because they were able to contain and control the virus earlier on.
You literally supported lockdown measure with this comment. I'm not sure why you're backtracking now.
You might wanna backtrack on the whole AUS NZ thing since they've essentially become authoritarian police states over the COVID cases everyone told them they would get hit with. Turns out it had nothing to do with their measures and everything to do with the fact they're giant islands that can stop anyone coming into their country.
Oh I supported lockdown measures when they were first introduced. Because I am not an idiot. But now that we have vaccinations available they are a better option when the virus is so widespread. The UK is also an island and we could have cut ourselves off from travel and kept the virus out bit an incompetent government meant that never happened. So the best solution now is vaccination for as much of the population as possible.
Australia has gone a bit nuts but it's hardly a police state and NZ has fared very well and is very definitely not an authoritarian police state.
Of everywhere NZ has had the best handling of the situation. Of course it had everything to do with their measures, stopping international travel was one of those measures, lockdowns were another.
> Perhaps the 250 attendees can decide if they want to be there in person or remotely, why would you remove that choice from the person giving the lecture?
If the lecturer is remote, then the 250 attendees don't have the choice to be there in person.
The acheivable goal of lockdowns outside of effictively island countries is to keep hospitals open with sufficient capacity. When hospitals don't have enough capacity, any reason to go to the hospital has a worse outcome. Physical beds are one thing, but staffing is a bigger issue.
The problem is it's a tricky system to manage. We can measure hospital utilization, but that lags infections. We can mandate lockdowns, but compliance varies and too many changes risks more non-compliance.
Also, there are existing reasons leading to too many people in hospitals that reduces capacity. And systemic issues that make staffing a challenge.
