Is this part of some weird political debate or something? The only thing I got out of that article is that one needs to count both the vaccinated and the recovered towards immunity levels, which is very much not controversial.
So, in March people should have said the opinion was reasonable and made corresponding policy decisions.
Include any facts that support a belief and omit all others.
Anyway, I’m simply saying the track record of the Journal leans more in one direction, and is frequently wrong.
Furthermore, no one ever follows up to correct all those incorrect opinions
Perhaps the steady diet of “coronavirus is no big deal” and “climate change “ opinions has skewed my opinion but to me the wsj seems to have an agenda.
Look, I don't really love the WSJ - but "what went wrong" is the exact same thing that went wrong with the government's story around vaccination.
If we would have reached herd immunity at 70-80% vaccinated (which is what was being said) then the argument was we would reach it sooner due to antibodies.
Given that delta evolved and rendered both of those stories bunk, I think it is silly to solely blame the WSJ for being wrong at predicting the future here.
From my point of view, the scientific consensus how covid spreads was pretty good from the start, and has only gotten better. With more information, the picture is more detailed, not fundamentally different.
What a completely unrelated piece by Bjørn Lomborg has to do with covid is not easy to understand. Hopefully no one is surprised if Lomborg has a simplified view of any given environmental problem. He is a business school professor after all and pretty well known for these things.
If you look at the chart of covid cases from March 2021, it is true that herd immunity was, in fact, near. Cases dropped to nearly zero shortly thereafter. Until the delta strain, of course, but the WSJ can hardly be expected to predict the future.
