"EU and US" is not even remotely approaching "universal": in total that is less that 10% of the world's population. Expand your horizons; this is not a parochial forum. For example, I was born in a country that is neither, and I live in another country that is neither.
Besides which, there are numerous EU member states whose vaccination rate remains below the population immunity level. More broadly, the global chain of infection, and the consequences thereof (preventable suffering and death), has not (yet) been interrupted by a sufficient global reservoir of acquired immunities.
Furthermore, "not as deadly" hardly corresponds to "don’t seem all that bad". Mustard gas is "not as deadly" as VX. Let's not move the goalposts. In the same vein, it would be a mistake to implicitly assume that future COVID variants will be less deadly.
Broadly speaking we don't have great data (in scale or quality) outside of the US and EU which is why I spoke to that. Things get pretty speculative even inside those borders.
> "not as deadly" hardly corresponds to "don’t seem all that bad".
That is a simply a judgement call really isn't it? We live with all sorts of terrible things. Cars kill over a million people each year and while terrible, they really aren't "all that bad"
I'm not trying to make light of something so serious only speaking in relative terms compared to what we've already been through. Also what is wrong with including vaccinated exactly? They have some level of immunity, that is what counts here right?
>you expressed a common fear that vaccination development becomes counter-productive
That is just false. I was asking if by developing such broad vaccines (as opposed to those that we have developed in the past) if we ran the risk of selecting for worse viruses. As best as I can tell the answer is no, but there isn't anything wrong with asking the question right?
> Cars kill over a million people each year and while terrible, they really aren't "all that bad"
I struggle to comprehend the mindset that allows anyone to think killing a million people "isn't all that bad".
> I was asking if by developing such broad vaccines (as opposed to those that we have developed in the past) if we ran the risk of selecting for worse viruses.
Whilst you were responding I edited that remark from my comment, since it does not lead to a worthwhile discussion. Nonetheless I'll stand by it as an appropriate characterization.
Things really can be good and bad. Cars I think by most accounts are good (do you disagree?), but they do lead to the deaths of a million+ every year, that is bad.
Junk foods like ice cream, pizza, soda etc. I think can be good but they also lead to the deaths of millions a year (albeit more indirectly). The world just isn't black and white. It is complex and there is nuance.
> I think can be good but they also lead to the deaths of millions a year
This discussion may as well end here, because I can have no meeting of minds with someone whose moral compass spins so freely as to wave away millions of human lives on frippery. The only other entity I've had a dialogue with willing to express a similar worldview was GPT-3. That AI was trained on a wide spectrum of human expression, so evidently someone out there agrees with such sentiment, but to me it's downright repugnant.
Besides which, there are numerous EU member states whose vaccination rate remains below the population immunity level. More broadly, the global chain of infection, and the consequences thereof (preventable suffering and death), has not (yet) been interrupted by a sufficient global reservoir of acquired immunities.
Furthermore, "not as deadly" hardly corresponds to "don’t seem all that bad". Mustard gas is "not as deadly" as VX. Let's not move the goalposts. In the same vein, it would be a mistake to implicitly assume that future COVID variants will be less deadly.