Your friend Jim George thinks you'd be a great addition to Ricochet, so we'd like to offer you a special deal: You can become a member for no initial charge for one month!
Ricochet is a community of like-minded people who enjoy writing about and discussing politics (usually of the center-right nature), culture, sports, history, and just about every other topic under the sun in a fully moderated environment. We’re so sure you’ll like Ricochet, we’ll let you join and get your first month for free. Kick the tires: read the always eclectic member feed, write some posts, join discussions, participate in a live chat or two, and listen to a few of our over 50 (free) podcasts on every conceivable topic, hosted by some of the biggest names on the right, for 30 days on us. We’re confident you’re gonna love it.
Brilliant summary.
As I (and many) have said since shortly after the beginning of this nightmare, let’s all get it, and get it over with! We don’t even have to continue testing – if we have had it and, like 95% of the population didn’t really notice, what difference does it make if you test positive now or next week or next year? Sooner or later you’ll have had it, just like hundreds of other viruses going around that never got a name so couldn’t be exploited.
I freely admit that I have Herpes simplex 1 (whichever one causes cold sores). I also have Chicken Pox – I have had outbreaks of shingles twice. Ouch – not pleasant.
If I die someday from a heart attack, and somebody notices that I happened to have a cold sore on my lip as I joined the choir invisible, I am pretty sure no one is going to attribute my death to Herpes.
This is all effing ridiculous.
Very well said. Would that you had a broader platform on which to distribute it.
One point, concerning vaccines. Have we learned nothing from past experience? Every year a new vaccine must be administered to (we hope) prevent the normal flu viruses. Is there any hope that the COVID-19 will not also mutate and require new vaccines, even if the one they are now pinning all hopes on does come about? Is there any evidence at all that this COVID will not mutate?
The cynicism that I struggle to suppress … fears that so long as the winning vaccine(s) can be sold at a lucrative price to a government that wants it to be mandatorily administered nationwide … it doesn’t really matter if it is effective in future years.
It is a golden egg-laying chicken, is it not?
Me too on the cold sores (I get them from bright sun exposure) and chicken pox (they go together) – get the new shingles vaccine if it’s indicated for repeat offenders. That’s one I actually believe in. It’s a double dose and supposed to be significant improvement over first one.
And I agree in the degree of ridiculousness on the range of symptoms called COVID. People are reporting Little Leaguers not wearing masks(!) having ice cream in Exeter. And the ice cream store not policing them. To the police. And posting pictures of said 9/10/11 year olds on media.
My bet is that it’s already done that – the range and intensity of symptoms varies so widely. It seems it’s more than one set of evil-doers on the virus train.
I’m pretty sure that’s not true, depending on how you define “extremely small”.
Other than that, good essay.
I suspect the COVID menace will suddenly subside in mid-November, pending the outcome of the election.
Yes. People die of the flu everyday……………and there is a vaccine! I want my grandchildren to live a normal life. Old people (I’m 64) can be selfish sometimes. Isolate yourself if you want to. Let others live a normal life.
There is some evidence for long-term aftereffects on infected people who have no symptoms or minimal symptoms. For example:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2768916
Bottom line: The burden of proof should be on politicians to justify restrictions, not on productive citizens to show their activities minimize risk of infection. Freedom should be the default position.
The restrictions were initially established on a combination of frightening information (foreign death counts), false information (China, WHO reports), and an abundance of mysteries (the nature of a new virus). Many questions remain, but we now know enough about the virus and its particular effects among US populations to make informed decisions. Long-term health effects remain a real possibility, but those and deaths due to overload must be balanced against the many severe problems of economic and social disruption born of legal restrictions.
Our governments must provide credible and regular explanations of why hospital overload remains a probable outcome to justify continued restrictions. Otherwise, they have exceeded their authority and set government against its fundamental purpose to facilitate life. If politicians force people to choose between life and law, then rule of law will disintegrate as people do what they must.
Let me go on record that I choose later, even though I know my death will occur anyway.
Early on Mrs Rodin was saying just let the virus go and suffer the consequences quickly whatever they are going to be because it won’t be stopped. She is not a foolish person, just someone who because of training and experience knows that society as a whole can’t practice effective infection-control protocols. If our immune system isn’t up to the challenge then we are going to be sick, possibly very sick and die. Watching how this has played out it is hard to fault Mrs Rodin’s (and Sweden’s) logic.
That’s so cute. What century did you grow up in?
I’ve tried to make this argument with people I work with: at some point we’ll all have been exposed and then we can drop all these precautions and carry on just like we used to.
They look at me like I’m crazy.
I read someone who said that New York City, given the rapid spread early (probably because of the subways and population density) had essentially adopted the Swedish approach without ever acknowledging it.
Well, all else being equal, as an individual I would too. But if the costs of extending my life a bit would damage the lives of my children and grandchildren for decades, I would skip the extension.
Public health policy is about statistics, not individuals.
I think that writing off people to “inevitable” virus death is something that people who think they are not at high risk do.
The chance that a person who exercises reasonable caution will go without coming into contact with the virus is actually pretty high. The large majority of people in the U.S. have already gone for several months without being exposed, and those who manage to avoid it until a vaccine is available will be home free, assuming a reasonably safe and effective vaccine.
Those who choose not to be vaccinated, well, that’s on them. Darwinism in action, perhaps, but a certain proportion of the population that goes un-immunized can benefit from widespread population immunity conferred by immunization. Herd immunity does not imply that 100% of people are immune, only that enough people are immune that virus spread is very low.
The situation isn’t really comparable to the seasonal flu since a new flu strain to which most people are not immune appears every year. Coronavirus doesn’t mutate as rapidly as the seasonal flu or else we’d still be dealing with the SARS that appeared in 2003.
Yes, Darwinism in action. Why would anybody advocate that others take vaccines that were rushed through design and production, and rushed through testing and may have serious side effects, and then may be only 50% effective?
I think I’d prefer to stock up on HCQ and zinc, and Vit-C. :)
Now if you want to restrict air travel to only those who have been vaccinated, well, then maybe the vaccine is worth the risk.
That assumption is doing a lot of work in that sentence.