The freedom to infect others and kill them or leave them with life-changing long covid? If we were allowed to vote on it I would take away that 'freedom', certainly.
SARS CoV-2 coronavirus / Covid-19 (No tin foil hat silliness please)
- Thread starter Don't Kill Bill
- Start date
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Member 55443
Guest
But the others have all been vaccinated? The others are still free to infect each other with other diseases too, as well as new variants that can originate anywhere on the globe (as opposed to just this minority of poor folk you share a country with who you’d be quick to blame I imagine) so do we keep introducing new punishments all the time forever? What is actually being achieved? At what stage do you gracefully allow them back into your society? When the whole world is covid free? Every single baby on earth is vaccinated? It really is a horrible thought.The freedom to infect others and kill them or leave them with life-changing long covid? If we were allowed to vote on it I would take away that 'freedom', certainly.
Yes, unless they have a medical reason for not vaccinating. We get too caught up in freedoms in these islands rather than sometimes doing what’s best for the majority. In fact unless they get onboard this thing might circulate for much longer.So you would support the government if they took away some basic freedoms of certain law abiding folk?
Ramshock
CAF Pilib De Brún Translator
Yes, unless they have a medical reason for not vaccinating. We get too caught up in freedoms in these islands rather than sometimes doing what’s best for the majority. In fact unless they get onboard this thing might circulate for much longer.
What medical reasons prevent you from being vaccinated?
I think the vaccine should have been mandatory from the start.
You cannot let peoples futures be held up, ruined or ended by selfish ignorant people.
Ramshock
CAF Pilib De Brún Translator
A choice they should be entitled to without being held at gun point no?
No not really, unless they are willing to be isolated for the rest of their lives.
Rado_N
Yaaas Broncos!
If they refuse to get vaccinated for anything less than doctors advice to that effect, yes 100%.So you would support the government if they took away some basic freedoms of certain law abiding folk?
MikeUpNorth
Wobbles like a massive pair of tits
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2007
- Messages
- 20,041
Sometimes when the stakes are really high, it is reasonable for a government to restrict freedoms of people unwilling to serve the country’s best interests. For example, the imprisonment of people evading conscription in an existential war.
Whether this is one of those situations, I’m not sure. The question for me is simply what is the best way to get those who are hesitant to submit to vaccination. Keeping them out of nightclubs might not really, uh, move the needle.
Whether this is one of those situations, I’m not sure. The question for me is simply what is the best way to get those who are hesitant to submit to vaccination. Keeping them out of nightclubs might not really, uh, move the needle.
I totally agree with your sentiment. I don’t know, I’m just speculating about possible medical issues.What medical reasons prevent you from being vaccinated?
I think the vaccine should have been mandatory from the start.
You cannot let peoples futures be held up, ruined or ended by selfish ignorant people.
I saw a person today not wearing a mask, instead she wore an exempt lanyard. What makes you exempt from wearing a piece of cloth over your mouth and nose. If doctors can do it all day,,
Member 55443
Guest
Yes, unless they have a medical reason for not vaccinating. We get too caught up in freedoms in these islands rather than sometimes doing what’s best for the majority. In fact unless they get onboard this thing might circulate for much longer.
If they have a medical reason not to be vaccinated they would still present the same risk of spreading COVID as someone who chose not to freely, meaning that in no uncertain terms you see it as more of a punishment than a necessity if people with medical reasons are allowed free roam of society? Because why.. you feel sorry for them? Doesn't that jeopardize the integrity of the whole idea? It doesn't take an expert at reading the room to see this is quite a common view here, I find it quite unnerving really and it gives me serious 'Lord of the flies' vibes. I fear that a significant number of vaccinated people are falling into this trap and I don't think many of our leaders have enough backbone to prevent it taking hold.
prateik
Full Member
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2005
- Messages
- 42,471
If vaccination is mandatory, people who arent getting vaccinated arent law abiding citizens...
Member 55443
Guest
The question for me is simply what is the best way to get those who are hesitant to submit to vaccination.
Assuming you would extend the asking of that question to the government (forgive me if you don't), but doesn't the thought of a government thinking in those terms make you wince and cringe? Is there anything a government can do beyond education that you would really be comfortable with and like to see?
Member 55443
Guest
If vaccination is mandatory, people who arent getting vaccinated arent law abiding citizens...
If there was an unforeseen consequence of mandatory vaccination, be it in the short term or long term - what do you suppose are the lessons we would take from it?
I take it you haven’t had yours?
Skills
Snitch
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2012
- Messages
- 42,989
Thorpe park had a good number of school trips turn up today. I went hoping to be there during a slightly quieter time (before the school holidays + no school trips this year). Turns out I was completely wrong.
Ramshock
CAF Pilib De Brún Translator
I totally agree with your sentiment. I don’t know, I’m just speculating about possible medical issues.
I saw a person today not wearing a mask, instead she wore an exempt lanyard. What makes you exempt from wearing a piece of cloth over your mouth and nose. If doctors can do it all day,,
Absolutely sickening.
Regulus Arcturus Black
Full Member
Absolutely sickening.
Don’t be a bunch of arseholes: https://theconversation.com/its-easy-to-judge-but-some-people-really-cant-wear-a-mask-143258
Of course some people have legit reason ffs.
Member 55443
Guest
I take it you haven’t had yours?
I would rather not say.
Pogue Mahone
Closet Gooner.
If they have a medical reason not to be vaccinated they would still present the same risk of spreading COVID as someone who chose not to freely, meaning that in no uncertain terms you see it as more of a punishment than a necessity if people with medical reasons are allowed free roam of society? Because why.. you feel sorry for them? Doesn't that jeopardize the integrity of the whole idea? It doesn't take an expert at reading the room to see this is quite a common view here, I find it quite unnerving really and it gives me serious 'Lord of the flies' vibes. I fear that a significant number of vaccinated people are falling into this trap and I don't think many of our leaders have enough backbone to prevent it taking hold.
Not sure if you’re trolling or just have a terrible understanding of the situation but that’s a shockingly dumb take.
There are actually very very few people who cannot get vaccinated for medical reasons. Such a tiny % they won’t have any effect on the overall immunity of the “herd”. You seem to think they’re vermin over-running the place, spreading virus willy nilly. This is obviously not the case. Even more so because the virus will be such a threat to them because of their impaired immune systems. So they will tend to be VERY careful.
And they’re not allowed free roam because anyone feels sorry for them. It’s because it’s the ethical thing to do. There are shades of grey in medical ethics but this is black and fecking white.
It’s just a ludicrous stretch to think that jealousy of someone who has a serious medical condition that precludes them getting a vaccine is going to be an issue for many reasonable people. A few idiots, maybe. Not enough to matter, in the grand scheme of things.
Last edited:
We have passed 4 million covid deaths but it is probably far more than that with excess death well above official.figures even though flu deaths are down. Over 4 million excess deaths in India alone apparently.
If there was an unforeseen consequence of mandatory vaccination, be it in the short term or long term - what do you suppose are the lessons we would take from it?
Like what?
If they have a medical reason not to be vaccinated they would still present the same risk of spreading COVID as someone who chose not to freely, meaning that in no uncertain terms you see it as more of a punishment than a necessity if people with medical reasons are allowed free roam of society? Because why.. you feel sorry for them? Doesn't that jeopardize the integrity of the whole idea? It doesn't take an expert at reading the room to see this is quite a common view here, I find it quite unnerving really and it gives me serious 'Lord of the flies' vibes. I fear that a significant number of vaccinated people are falling into this trap and I don't think many of our leaders have enough backbone to prevent it taking hold.
That there are a few people who can't take a vaccine is one of the main reasons that people who can should. Free riders risk themselves but risk those who.can't get a vaccination for health or age related reasons.
I don't advocate forcing people to.be vaccinated in a physical.sense but encouraging them through tax incentives (stick is fine e.g. increased Medicare levy for the unvaccinated), restricted access, travel and enrolment in things where the unvaccinated would endanger others e.g. schools and universities. We should have been doing this already.
Member 55443
Guest
Not sure if you’re trolling or just have a terrible understanding of the situation but that’s a shockingly dumb take.
There are actually very very few people who cannot get vaccinated for medical reasons. Such a tiny % they won’t have any effect on the overall immunity of the “herd”. And they’re not allowed free roam because anyone feels sorry for them. It’s because it’s the ethical thing to do. There are shades of grey in medical ethics but this is black and fecking white.
The rest of your post is just a mish mash of nonsense. Very hard to work out what point you’re making. If any.
How do you know they wont have any effect? If un-vaccinated people are so dangerous that they must have their freedoms withdrawn by the state then how on Gods green Earth is it ethical to let some of them out of it based on something that is ultimately irrelevant? Those people could foster a dangerous new variant just as much as anyone else could regardless of their reasons for not having a jab. This whole thing would have started with just one or two infected people after all. It probably went over your head because you're one of the most rabid people discussing this topic, and I would frankly rather not engage with you any further regarding it. It's a miracle you didn't jump in sooner.
Like what?
Who knows, but it's not unimaginable and not beyond the realms of possibility. I'm sure you have enough imagination to think of something.
saivet
Full Member
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2013
- Messages
- 26,407
Out of interest, roughly at what percentage would the unvaccinated become 'irrelevant' when it comes to herd immunity? The main reason I ask is because 90% of adults in the UK have had at least one dose. Assuming they all have a second dose and a few others decide to take it, it's less than 10% of the adult population that will be unvaccinated.Not sure if you’re trolling or just have a terrible understanding of the situation but that’s a shockingly dumb take.
There are actually very very few people who cannot get vaccinated for medical reasons. Such a tiny % they won’t have any effect on the overall immunity of the “herd”. You seem to think they’re vermin over-running the place, spreading virus willy nilly. This is obviously not the case. Even more so because the virus will be such a threat to them because of their impaired immune systems. So they will tend to be VERY careful.
Pogue Mahone
Closet Gooner.
How do you know they wont have any effect? If un-vaccinated people are so dangerous that they must have their freedoms withdrawn by the state then how on Gods green Earth is it ethical to let some of them out of it based on something that is ultimately irrelevant? Those people could foster a dangerous new variant just as much as anyone else could regardless of their reasons for not having a jab. This whole thing would have started with just one or two infected people after all. It probably went over your head because you're one of the most rabid people discussing this topic, and I would frankly rather not engage with you any further regarding it. It's a miracle you didn't jump in sooner.
Rabid. Good one. I don’t think you understood my post, based on what you’re saying here. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn’t read the most recent, edited version. Read it again.
Member 55443
Guest
Adds nothing to the discussion
Rabid. Good one. I don’t think you understood my post, based on what you’re saying here. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn’t read the most recent, edited version. Read it again.
I would rather shit in my hands and clap
Who knows, but it's not unimaginable and not beyond the realms of possibility. I'm sure you have enough imagination to think of something.
I can imagine it causing a zombie apocalypse but imagination isn't how I make rational informed choices.
I also don't need to imagine the consequences, personally or for society, of not getting vaccinated because they are known.
Pogue Mahone
Closet Gooner.
Out of interest, roughly at what percentage would the unvaccinated become 'irrelevant' when it comes to herd immunity? The main reason I ask is because 90% of adults in the UK have had at least one dose. Assuming they all have a second dose and a few others decide to take it, it's less than 10% of the adult population that will be unvaccinated.
The sum total of adults who have a medical condition that means it would be dangerous to get vaccinated would be a fraction of 1%. Thus completely irrelevant the safety of society as a whole.
They obviously can’t be vaccinated, which leaves it up to the rest of us to do our bit. Or not. Whatever. Nobody is ever going to make the vaccine mandatory. But there will be things that choosing to take a vaccine will allow you to do that you couldn’t otherwise. Which isn’t even a new concept. People have been choosing to get vaccinated in order to travel to certain places for decades.
The sum total of adults who have a medical condition that means it would be dangerous to get vaccinated would be a fraction of 1%. Thus completely irrelevant the safety of society as a whole.
They obviously can’t be vaccinated, which leaves it up to the rest of us to do our bit. Or not. Whatever. Nobody is ever going to make the vaccine mandatory. But there will be things that choosing to take a vaccine will allow you to do that you couldn’t otherwise. Which isn’t even a new concept. People have been choosing to get vaccinated in order to travel to certain places for decades.
To enrol in Uni in the US, land of the free, my son needed to show a full vaccination record including chickenpox. From this fall term he needs to have a covid vaccination to enrol in F2F classes or play his sport. The alternative was no F2F classes or sport for all.
neverdie
Full Member
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2018
- Messages
- 2,683
That's a poor example. The imprisonment of conscientious objectors was considered illiberal even during WW1.For example, the imprisonment of people evading conscription in an existential war.
Isn't it a problem to think in terms of herd immunity tied to vaccination when up to 20% of the population has not been recommended for vaccination? Or is the line of thought that children are less likely to be a risk when it comes to the development of new variants? Because under 16s constitute 20%+ of the population the UK and that's a comparatively low number in EU terms. I understand that children are far less likely to suffer adverse effects on a personal level, which outweighs the risk of negative vaccination response, but surely on a collective level they represent a far greater risk than the tiny fraction of vaccine hold outs?Such a tiny % they won’t have any effect on the overall immunity of the “herd”.
RoadTrip
petitioned for a just cause
That's a poor example. The imprisonment of conscientious objectors was considered illiberal even during WW1.
Isn't it a problem to think in terms of herd immunity tied to vaccination when up to 20% of the population has not been recommended for vaccination? Or is the line of thought that children are less likely to be a risk when it comes to the development of new variants? Because under 16s constitute 20%+ of the population the UK and that's a comparatively low number in EU terms. I understand that children are far less likely to suffer adverse effects on a personal level, which outweighs the risk of negative vaccination response, but surely on a collective level they represent a far greater risk than the tiny fraction of vaccine hold outs?
I could be wrong but I always thought to get to herd immunity you needed circa 75% of the population vaccinated. So perhaps the figures quoted here factor in the fact that the younger population aren’t going to get vaccinated and hence it’s a % of adults rather than the full population. Could be wrong though.
neverdie
Full Member
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2018
- Messages
- 2,683
I'm not sure either. WHO states that there is significant variance between types of contagious disease. The threshold for Polio is 75-80% whereas measles requires 95%. Seems an ongoing topic which means there isn't a concrete answer yet which in turn makes assumptions of herd immunity and %s of holdouts, hesitants, health-disabled, and other misc ideological objectors seem a bit arbitrary to me.I could be wrong but I always thought to get to herd immunity you needed circa 75% of the population vaccinated. So perhaps the figures quoted here factor in the fact that the younger population aren’t going to get vaccinated and hence it’s a % of adults rather than the full population. Could be wrong though.
https://reason.com/2020/05/15/whats-the-herd-immunity-threshold-for-the-covid-19-coronavirus/
https://www.jhsph.edu/covid-19/articles/achieving-herd-immunity-with-covid19.html
Two good resources though the first might be dated.
My point has less to do with vaccination. I'm wondering if herd immunity is as impressive a goal as people seem to think given the potential for mutations among those without the vaccine as well as a large percentage of those who have been inoculated. It's common sense to get vaccinated but does that translate so easily into it being common sense to proactively discriminate against those who can't, might, or even won't? (medical/children; hesitant/holdouts; ideologically motivated/anti-vax). I think some of the measures being discussed here could easily prove counterintuitive and counterproductive.
Last edited:
That's a poor example. The imprisonment of conscientious objectors was considered illiberal even during WW1.
Isn't it a problem to think in terms of herd immunity tied to vaccination when up to 20% of the population has not been recommended for vaccination? Or is the line of thought that children are less likely to be a risk when it comes to the development of new variants? Because under 16s constitute 20%+ of the population the UK and that's a comparatively low number in EU terms. I understand that children are far less likely to suffer adverse effects on a personal level, which outweighs the risk of negative vaccination response, but surely on a collective level they represent a far greater risk than the tiny fraction of vaccine hold outs?
Kids will be vaccinated in most countries I'd say. Australia looks like 12+ will be vaccinated next year. If/when we actually have enough vaccine that is. Personally I'd go as young as is considered safe. Unless there is a reason not to I'd follow the flu shot age advice, which is 6 months+ for most flu vaccines and 5+ for another.
The hard thing with covid is that the HIT will be high for Delta, 80/85% maybe, and combined with the vaccines not being sterilising will likely mean we need to vaccinate almost everyone. If 5/10% or more of the adult population selfishly decide to be free riders we probably won't get there.
Last edited:
I'm wondering if herd immunity is as impressive a goal as people seem to think.
Yes. Hit or exceed HIT and the virus dies out.
neverdie
Full Member
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2018
- Messages
- 2,683
Kids will be vaccinated in most countries I'd say. Australia looks like 12+ will be vaccinated next year. If/when we actually have enough vaccine that is. Personally I'd go as young as is considered safe. If there is a reason not to I'd follow the flu shot age advice, which is 6 months+ for most flu vaccines and 5+ for another.
The hard thing with covid is that the HIT will be high for Delta, 80/85% maybe) and combined with the vaccines not being sterilising will likely mean we need to vaccinate almost everyone. If 5/10% or more of the adult population selfishly decide to be free riders we probably won't get there.
This makes sense. So far the thinking seems to be that as children are statistically much less likely to suffer adverse effects from Covid, then their vaccination is not a priority relative to elderly and descending categories adults based on age and underlying risk. The problem being that vaccines are not 100% effective so 20% of the population not being vaccinated seems to destroy HIT out of hand (if 80-85% is the thinking for delta).
So the biggest problems are arguably those under the age of 18 and the five billion or so people whose mass vaccination prospects lag way behind the most privileged three billion.Yes. Hit or exceed HIT and the virus dies out.
If everyone is vaccinated tomorrow, does that mean the virus dies? Or does the 5% margin of error and the way the vaccines work in terms of transmission mean that variants may still occur within vaccinated populations? Can vaccinated people play host to the development of new variants or is this unknown? It's obviously statistically much less likely (95% so) but wondering what are the implications for herd immunity overall.
Good news is that the cases in the UK and other similar areas may be sky high but the death rate is very low which means that the vaccines have been a massive success. There have been 600k cases in the past 14 days and fewer than 500 deaths. There is always a lag as everyone knows by now but we should be seeing a far higher number of deaths than that if we go by the March-May and September-January waves. Only question which might matter now is what number per million of the population is an acceptable weekly death rate? It's currently 4 per million in the UK and in comparable countries (in terms of vaccine regime % and rising % of cases) it is less than 1.
Kids will be vaccinated in most countries I'd say. Australia looks like 12+ will be vaccinated next year. If/when we actually have enough vaccine that is. Personally I'd go as young as is considered safe. Unless there is a reason not to I'd follow the flu shot age advice, which is 6 months+ for most flu vaccines and 5+ for another.
The hard thing with covid is that the HIT will be high for Delta, 80/85% maybe, and combined with the vaccines not being sterilising will likely mean we need to vaccinate almost everyone. If 5/10% or more of the adult population selfishly decide to be free riders we probably won't get there.
This is an issue that is quite close to my heart. Was discussing this with my wife on and off. The vaccination drive in Singapore is pushing forward and we will both be fully vaccinated soon. Our parents are fully vaccinated and our siblings will be as well. But the kids are not. Can we be full safe and secure without vaccinating the kids? We have protection but not the kids, which means when travel reopens and if we do travel, we will be unfairly exposing the kids to the virus. Currently there isn't much data on how the vaccines impact kids, which means it is unlikely that the vaccines will be made available to the young ones anytime soon.
This makes sense. So far the thinking seems to be that as children are statistically much less likely to suffer adverse effects from Covid, then their vaccination is not a priority relative to elderly and descending categories adults based on age and underlying risk. The problem being that vaccines are not 100% effective so 20% of the population not being vaccinated seems to destroy HIT out of hand (if 80-85% is the thinking for delta).
Kids aren't a priority but we will need them vaccinated to get to HIT partly die to the high Ro of Delta and partly due the vaccines not being sterilising. However, as the vaccines reduce symptomatic/severe disease and the effective R significantly reducing due to a lower viral load and less coughing and sneezing etc that will reduce droplet and aerosol transmission so there is probably a more gradual route to HIT - given the will and people's participation.
So the biggest problems are arguably those under the age of 18 and the five billion or so people whose mass vaccination prospects lag way behind the most privileged three billion.
Agreed. It won't be quick and maybe only potentially achievable in some countries.
If everyone is vaccinated tomorrow, does that mean the virus dies? Or does the 5% margin of error and the way the vaccines work in terms of transmission mean that variants may still occur within vaccinated populations? Can vaccinated people play host to the development of new variants or is this unknown? It's obviously statistically much less likely (95% so) but wondering what are the implications for herd immunity overall.
As we don't know exactly what HIT is for Delta we can't be certain but theoretically if 100% of people were protected approx. 95% from severe disease I strongly suspect that would be high enough to see covid eradicated. Probably ot going to happen of course.
Good news is that the cases in the UK and other similar areas may be sky high but the death rate is very low which means that the vaccines have been a massive success. There have been 600k cases in the past 14 days and fewer than 500 deaths. There is always a lag as everyone knows by now but we should be seeing a far higher number of deaths than that if we go by the March-May and September-January waves. Only question which might matter now is what number per million of the population is an acceptable death rate? It's currently 4 per million in the UK and in comparable countries (in terms of vaccine regime % and rising % of cases) it is less than 1.
We know that in Australia. Zero.
The Fed government don't really agree but have painted themselves in to a corner due to fecking up vaccine procurement and not wanting to take responsibility for anything. I'd say it will take an election to sort this question out here.
Personally I'd say we can gradually unlock once every adult has been offered the shot assuming vaccination rates are high enough not to overwhelm the health service.
This is an issue that is quite close to my heart. Was discussing this with my wife on and off. The vaccination drive in Singapore is pushing forward and we will both be fully vaccinated soon. Our parents are fully vaccinated and our siblings will be as well. But the kids are not. Can we be full safe and secure without vaccinating the kids? We have protection but not the kids, which means when travel reopens and if we do travel, we will be unfairly exposing the kids to the virus. Currently there isn't much data on how the vaccines impact kids, which means it is unlikely that the vaccines will be made available to the young ones anytime soon.
Vaccines have a long history of safety for kids. Australia are already flagging 12+ will be vaccinated. Pfizer and Moderna are doing trial with kids from 6 months and up I think so maybe we can vaccinate everyone.
https://www.healthline.com/health-news/covid-19-vaccines-and-kids-under-12-what-to-know#1
Last edited:
Vaccines have a long history of safety for kids. Australia are already flagging 12+ will be vaccinated. Pfizer and Moderna are doing trial with kids from 6 months and up I think so maybe we can vaccinate everyone.
https://www.healthline.com/health-news/covid-19-vaccines-and-kids-under-12-what-to-know#1
Oh I didnt know they are going trial with the younger kids!
That is good news.
Singapore has also started vaccinating 12+ kids with Pfizer.
My son and nephews/nieces are all under 12 though, so will have to wait.
Last edited by a moderator:
neverdie
Full Member
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2018
- Messages
- 2,683
Ideally I agree with you but due to other factors I don't see this being possible. Australia and other countries are anomalous in certain respects because they are island nations with severe travel restrictions. Wasn't life almost "normal" in Australia at time when Europe was facing the worst of its various waves? Being able to lock-down completely is a massive advantage. 30k cases in total for a population of 20m is the first hint. The virus was controllable from the outset in places like Australia, New Zealand and Taiwan to an extent that it simply wasn't in North America and Europe.We know that in Australia. Zero.
Probably will take an election to figure this stuff out globally but I don't see all countries arriving at equal answers. The UK seems willing to accept an initial death rate of 100/200 per million per year if it means a complete economic reopening whereas other countries don't have to compromise for various other sociopolitical/geographical reasons. This initial rate will decrease over time as those who travel produce proof of vaccination or negative test result.
Ideally I agree with you but due to other factors I don't see this being possible. Australia and other countries are anomalous in certain respects because they are island nations with severe travel restrictions. Wasn't life almost "normal" in Australia at time when Europe was facing the worst of its various waves? Being able to lock-down completely is a massive advantage. 30k cases in total for a population of 20m is the first hint. The virus was controllable from the outset in places like Australia, New Zealand and Taiwan to an extent that it simply wasn't in North America and Europe.
We had a full lockdown and closed borders that effectively eradicated covid (which wasn't the original aim) but after that were far more normal than most countries. Delta and the resultant leaks from hotel quarantine as a result of #scottyfrommarketing refusing to build purpose built quarantine and totally fecking up vaccine procurement now puts is in a difficult spot.
I'm still not at all sure only island nations could have virtually eradicated covid. Our states have operated their borders much like countries and it has worked very well. Even if elimination wasn't possible I don't think most countries tried hard enough until it was far too late. Even if we had just supressed much better everywhere, then most/all of the variants of concern may not have arisen.
Share: