A couple thoughts.
1) Herd immunity only works if the virus does not mutate, which is why flu shots are required every year and why there are no vaccines for the common cold.
2) SARS-CoV-2 is to Covid-19 as HIV is to AIDS. Being infected with a virus is not the same as having the disease. There could be a significant lag between getting infected and developing the disease (as is the case with HIV and AIDS) or getting infected and not developing the disease (as is the case in Hepatitis carriers). So depending on the specific nature of the virus/disease, you might only track one but not the other.
3) Its easier to be an armchair general than to be at the front lines making the tough decisions. Thus far, no country has been "perfect" in their response and it would seem Trump is guilty of the many things Pompeo is blaming China for.
4) There is always a cost associated with any government policy/decision that is rarely discussed. It is undisputed that whether it is forced quarantine, volunteer social distancing, or shelter-in-place orders, there is an economic cost for society to shoulder, actuarians can workout how many extra deaths will result from such burdens. In essence, saving X number of people will cost Y number to die from the measure. Quite an ethical conundrum even if X is vastly greater than Y.
I think we are talking about two different issues here, @JanJal. While you are more focused on governmental policies and their resulting circumstances, I am discussing the emotional responses to the unknown or the intangible.
I can see your points and I've articulated mine and so the rest is just a matter of preference and philosophy. To each their own.
But isn't that my point? The economic disruption and hardship is real because we can witness it but is the danger from Covid-19 really as bad as presented? To be clear, I am not discounting the dangers and the existence of Covid-19, only questioning the rationality of the response people have over the perceived ebb and flow of the disease.
For example, if some of my acquaintances or their acquaintances become ill from the virus, I will become concerned regardless of whether or not it's a national or international phenomenon. By the same token, even if there is a global epidemic going around but my community seems to be immune from it, I would be less concerned. But is it rational to become alarmed by reports without corresponding evidence? To make another point, people are sighing a sigh of relief because there have been 0 new cases in Yunnan for sometime, but yesterday, or there abouts, a new case was confirmed, so what does that mean? We go back to fear? Wasn't the risk the same today as it was before the new case of announced?
I do not need to know anybody that was injured in that fallen building because I can see the rubble of the building, in this scenario, the tangible aspect is the buildings themselves and not the people inside. If a thousand buildings collapsed in Beijing, should I be concerned about my building in Kunming? Probably not, unless there is factual evidence linking those buildings to my building. If a couple of buildings collapsed in my xiaoqu would I be concerned? Absolutlely! And I will not go back to living there until I can assured by factual evidence that is it safe to occupy.
So again I say, I am not advocating ignoring precautions and living life as normal and burying one's head in the sand, but to react emotionally to reports of something happening remotely is irrational.
Fear due to personal experience is rational, however illogical it might be. Fear due to unsubstantiated hearsay is both irrational and illogical.
No results found.