- Apr 26, 2020
- United Kingdom
We have real-time data, sure; but when reopening from lockdown, governments have to rely on modelling future scenarios and predictive science.I believe they are all the mRNA vaccines, I don't feel like looking them all up but IIRC even the Russian one is the same tech. Dr. Paul Offit said you could likely be able to mix and match the vaccines for 1st and 2nd doses for example if you can't get the 2nd dose of the original one you got while a different vaccine is available at the time.
I wrote a whole paragraph about how you don't need to base public policy off the assumptions for this. We have basically real-time data for infections, hospitalizations, and whatnot. There's no reason to make policy based of someone's prediction whether it's mine or Dr. Fauci's because we'll know when infections start dropping greatly. Now, the stupid shit in California is stupid policy based on no science, which is what the thread is about, they're trying to recall Newsom now.
Look at the last two lockdowns in the UK. We locked down; infections fell way down; we reopened; infections grew again, beyond the point they were at originally. You cannot just yo-yo in and out of lockdown, reacting to the current infection level, because the current infection level is going to be artificially low as a direct result of lockdown.
You need scientists and researchers to model a roadmap out of lockdown that doesn't involve letting it spike and overwhelm the health service. And every model that has been produced has been very cautious.
And you seem to be always looking at the best, or taking the most optimistic model. It seems to me that when so many lives are at stake, it makes perfect sense to prepare and plan for the worst-case scenario.I trust where the majority of the data points. If 8 of 10 studies show "this", then "this" is probably correct vs "that". It doesn't matter what's more hopeful or not to me. You seem to be always looking at the worst or just taking in the awfully worded headline that isn't nearly that awful when you read the whole thing like that story I linked to in my lost post.
The least deadly pandemic. The point being that pandemics are exceptionally rare and exceptionally deadly events as a basic requirement.And you're going to say probably the least deadly (in IFR) pandemic in history as having a "fucking high" IFR? If I'm less likely to die from "it" than something that I do everyday that I and just everyone else in the world deems as acceptable risk, I'm not going to call the risk from "it" fucking high.
And if you're talking about driving again, we've already debunked that nonsense comparison.