Why do people act like a completely unreasonable plan (and plan is generous) created by the morons in charge was ever going to be followed, let alone work?
Looking back with the benefit of hindsight, what do you suppose the decisions makers could have done in the moment that would have persuaded you and other contrarians that they had a plan worth following, or at least worth trying?
Which moment? The moment we invaded Afghanistan 20 years ago and racked up trillions in debt killing people over seas instead of investing in infrastructure? The moment when the Bush administration lied about WMD and the media just cheered the war on?
The moment nursing home residents were left untreated in their rooms because the 'data' said you couldn't treat anybody with steroids?
It's hard to pick a moment, because the 'science' has been junk from the jump. The bulk of 1st world governments are liars and criminals. Why would I believe a solitary thing they ever have to say?
For me, it was when the Swedish approach was widely derided even though it was logically sound. (isolate the at-risk, everyone else get on with life and build herd immunity).
Interesting. I never thought it was logically sound, and my impression is that the the data has borne that out, basically all along (and that it was quite valuable to have Sweden and New Zealand as the two outlier examples for what it looked like to handle the pandemic especially poorly and especially well). A recent example with some hard numbers:
"Sweden has recorded more COVID-19 cases per capita than most countries so far: Since the start of the pandemic, roughly 11 out of every 100 people in Sweden have been diagnosed with COVID-19, compared with 9.4 out of every 100 in the UK and 7.4 per 100 in Italy. Sweden has also recorded around 145 COVID-19 deaths for every 100,000 people — around three times more than Denmark, eight times more than Finland, and nearly 10 times more than Norway.
Had Sweden implemented tighter rules, experts told Insider, the country might have seen a COVID-19 death toll more similar to those Nordic neighbors."
>roughly 11 out of every 100 people in Sweden have been diagnosed with COVID-19, compared with 9.4 out of every 100 in the UK and 7.4 per 100 in Italy
If the goal is to shoot for herd immunity, then you would need 40-60% of population to have antibodies. No way to get from A -> B without people 'catching it'
At some point it needs to be accepted that Covid is now endemic and is 'never going away'. Trying to stave it off with leaky vaccines is like trying safeguard your 0-day with a leaky firewall.
Logical and medically minded people should focus on developing and testing therapeutics to reduce the need for hospitalizations. Sadly that will require loss of profits to very large companies.
Why jump to an assumption that there's a dark profit motive here? Isn't that what has led to people clinging to snake oil miracle cures like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin?
Certainly there was never any profit motive for anyone (except maybe Amazon and Uber Eats) when people were encouraging to stay home, or wear improvised masks.
In any case, there is lots of study going on in this area— it's not like Pfizer and friends have somehow squelched research into it, particularly when the makers of the other drugs under investigation stand to make a giant windfall from a successful result:
Yes it's endemic and we're all just going to get it now. But getting it is much, much less bad for the vaccinated than the unvaccinated, and at least as a parent of young kids, I know I won't be rushing them out to a pox party until there's an approved vaccine they can take first in order to prepare.
>Why jump to an assumption that there's a dark profit motive here?
Total legal immunity + gov mandates to buy your product. Thats probably the largest single profit motive that could possibly exist...I mean can you reasonably imagine a greater profit scenario?
Garbage in, garbage out.