It sure is, by virtue of telling the elderly and at risk people to keep stringent self-isolation procedures so that the rest of us can do whatever we like. It is similarly asking the Nursing staff that hasn't had Covid-19 yet to do nothing but eat, sleep and work because they need to self-isolate as to not bring Covid-19 to the nursing homes they work in. These guys are basically saying that the elderly, sick and nursing staff should be suffering extreme lockdown so that the rest of us can stop bothering with minimizing contagion and start spreading the sickness again.
It is good that I've never been a lockdown proponent then. I fully support the Swedish strategy of measured restrictions and carefully balancing how open society can be with how to best minimize contagion. Full lockdown was bad from the start and I think everyone is seeing that now. But the idea of Focused Protection is to stop enforcing all quarantine and contagion mitigation efforts for everyone not at risk and increase the quarantine for those at risk (and those working with those at risk, in extension). The solution is not either/or, it is not full lockdown or no restrictions. The solution is to keep as much infrastructure as possible running (schools, workplaces etc.) while minimizing social contacts were people tend to get very close to one another (restaurants, bars, sport events etc.).
I love your certainty. Especially since epidemiologists all are wary to give a prediction for how long the virus can be around. Without a vaccine it can be bouncing around for years, especially if it turns out that immunity to it is only temporary or partial. Worst case predictions has Covid-19 being around for half a decade. Which means that any responsible plan for how to deal with the pandemic has to assume that all measures put in place has to be continued for years to come.
The vulnerable are already self-isolating for the most part. Tons of nonvulnerable are isolating as well because the media doesn't tell you the actual risks. For the vast majority of people, driving is more dangerous yet they don't have a problem with that. I'm sure medical staff that work with the vulnerable just normally feel guilty doing something "risky" because they could potentially transmit it possibly causing a death. I don't see how this really changes much with regards to the groups you mentioned honestly. The virus spreading faster through the nonvulnerable means it becomes safe faster for those vulnerable.
It's based off SARS-COV-1 granting immunity for at least 17 years (as it's still going) and it conferring immunity to SARS-COV-2 so both viruses are similar enough that the same anti-bodies kill Covid. The virus is also very slow to mutate so that shouldn't be an issue. Plus, vaccines are close to being ready it seems. Most signs point to the virus not hanging around long. Not that it's 100% or anything. I'd expect no restrictions whatsoever by next summer.
It's not what they got wrong, it's what they omitted. This is what think tanks have done from the year dot. They start with ideology, data mine other people's research to select out only what they want other people to see, and bundle it together as a package to market it.
It always look like it makes sense, and it's written up to seem very appealing. But in reality the first and only consideration for all these think tanks is whether the policies they create serve their paymasters: basically, corporations and their shareholders. Literally anyone and everyone else can be thrown under the bus.
It's more so an idea vs an full-fledged optimal plan. It's basically like "hey, we've learned this virus is not very deadly at all to most people, the hardships from the lockdowns are producing more harm than the virus so we shouldn't be doing that." That's the general message, what did they omit? The one guy I know somewhat is Dr. Jay (not looking up his last name right now), and he from the start wanted to know the actual infection fatality rate (IFR) and was one of the 1st people doing anti-body surveys. If you don't know how deadly or undeadly something is, you can't really make proper policies/guidelines/restrictions/etc. Now that we know the numbers, the lockdowns just don't make sense. I don't personally think going 100% back to normal (while protecting the vulnerable) is the best solution, but a bunch of policies don't make sense. The UK recently/still has? the "rule of 6" in place meaning you can't be with 7+ people EVEN OUTSIDE, that makes no sense. I work IT for hospitals and if you need to go to a clinic for something, they're making you go to the actual hospital if you have like any symptom (like a headache) and costing people way more money in medical costs just for basic care. I heard this one nurse wanting to super thoroughly clean something (I forget what it was) because the person had covid 2 MONTHS ago and the other nurse wiped it down normally. A doctor today didn't realize she borrowed my pen to sign an agreement for the new laptop I gave and said I should wiped down the pen, and I said "Nah, I'm good". Hotels shrink wrap the TV remotes when house keeping could just set it on the window-sill in the sun for a couple minutes while they clean the room if they're so concerned about it. Chances are very slim you transmit the virus from surfaces but everybody is so fucking paranoid. I'm for policies that make sense with the data/numbers we have, and that's currently not what's happening.
Exactly, you want to be right. You're not willing to listen to dissenting opinions. You have actual scientists telling you where you are mistaken and assume that you know better than them anyway because you read an article. It's a perfect example of Dunning-Krueger. You're unaware of exactly how complicated this shit is and as a result you mistake just how thorough your own knowledge of the topic is or isn't. I'm not saying this to be That Guy, we all do it. You're very certain of the correctness of your opinions, but your certainty is that of a fool. You're over-estimating your own understanding of medicine, biology and epidemiology.
You don't get what either Dunning-Krueger is and/or not understanding what I'm saying. I'm not saying based on my research and knowledge on the subject, this is my opinion. I'm saying these doctors/experts based on their knowledge and the data we have are saying this and that. The guy, Michael Osterholm, that literally wrote the book on a hypothetical pandemic from China literally said at the beginning of it was that closing schools is probably not a good idea. Dr. Peter Hotez said a SARS vaccine would work and he was right, it wasn't my knowledge that came to that hypothesis. He also said seeing friends and stuff was fine way back in March so I wasn't one of the "stay home at all costs" people because I listened to actual doctors instead watching the horrible media that can't get any facts right. Look at this
video and the media saying "look all these lawmakers not wearing masks and hugging", they're fucking outside, you don't need masks. Everything in the media has some stupid agenda to it instead of the facts. So if I say you shouldn't close schools, it's not my opinion, it's Osterholm's opinion and I'm trusting the expert's opinion. I listen to both opinions on any subject and the side the produces the stronger argument and has more evidence, I'm going to go with. Being for hydroxy is very dissenting in US for example and the fact that Trump boasted it would make me be highly skeptical since I hate Trump. But I'm going where the data leads, not what I want. It has literally nothing to do with my understanding of medicine but what doctors and experts are saying. I understand some basics but not nearly enough to have a legit opinion just based on that.
USA
