What a nonsense reply. I shouldn't need to make my case because 1) common decency would require that if I kindly ask something that is a minor inconvenience to the other, the other would do it to make me feel more comfortable and 2) it was a condition for using a private service.

Now generally, I don't have either the time or inclination to have to make my case for people who refuse to follow the rules. We can have such discussions here, we can do that during a protest, we can do that in Parliament but we don't do it in a fucking train where the majority of people are too scared to speak up because they're afraid a bunch of teenage assholes will beat them up.

It's also funny that you think I took pride in doing this, which was totally not the point of the story. But I didn't expect anything else but for your and Tzeentch to jump on this.

Of course there are more Americans now than then. But I think the article you referred to was referring to other proclaims.

About 50,000 people die every day because of the effects of poverty. What massive global action are we taking to prevent those deaths?...oh yes..fuck all again. — Isaac

Absolute global povetry has gone down. But that naturally isn't the politically correct news to say. Especially for Americans.



And the reason why American aren't aware that things have improved in other places:

Of course there are more Americans now than then. — ssu

Exactly. So it's a misleading statistic deliberately cited in terms designed to further the fear and panic. Yet you thought it a good idea to promote it. We fully expect any epidemic to kill more people these days because there are more people to kill. In addition, this epidemic targets mainly the elderly and America's demographic has shifted heavily in favour of this age group, and there's an obesity crisis in America which we would fully expect to make them much more vulnerable to any epidemic than they would have been otherwise (even without the fact that Covid seems to particularly target the obese). We might also expect a lower figure due to the improvements in medical care, but that's harder to quantify with variable access to care and the disease primarily affecting the already sick (ie those medical care has failed to actually cure thus far).

The question is what you think such a misleading statistic contributes to the discussion. Why post it?

Absolute global poverty has gone down. But that naturally isn't the politically correct news to say. Especially for Americans. — ssu

So? Vulnerability to COVID-19 would go down too if we just did nothing. If COVID kills 1,900 a day now, and we took no further steps at all, in 20 years time it would kill a fraction of that number. The point is we're pulling out all the stops to reduce deaths from this particular cause right now, not gradual steps to reduce it a bit over the next 20 years.

Again the point is the deliberate misuse of statistics. 1,900 people die every day from Covid. That just sounds a lot, anything over a thousand is a big number to most people. Out of context it's completely meaningless. Before Covid did you know, off the top of your head, how many people die every day from any given cause? No (or if you did, you're in a minority). So what use is the out of context figure? Is 1,900 a lot, normal, low...? No-one knows because presented without any comparative data it's useless, so again, why post it?

As far as my attempts to provide comparative figures are concerned - the issue is not that global poverty has gone down (my use of 'fuck all' was rhetorical - I might have said 'very little') it's that the number of deaths were seen as normal. In 2000 it was seen as normal to have 900 or so deaths per 100,000. By 2019 it was normal to have 800 or so deaths per 100,000. Now, due to a new cause of death on the scene, we're back up to 900,000 or so per 100,000, only unlike in 2000, when it was accepted as normal, this time it's being seen as something which every grain of social, economic and political effort must be immediately put to reducing. That is the relative comparison to make. That the causes of the deaths in 2000 were being dealt with slowly, eventually, as part of mixed approach to contemporary issues. The deaths in 2021 are being dealt with by the full force of social and economic pressure to the exclusion of all other contemporary considerations.

Of course, I'm sure that fact that the solution being used in 2021 has been provided by the largest, most powerful lobbying industry the world has ever seen has nothing whatsoever to do with that change of approach and is a complete coincidence.

Now, due to a new cause of death on the scene, we're back up to 900,000 or so per 100,000, only unlike in 2000, when it was accepted as normal, this time it's being seen as something which every grain of social, economic and political effort must be immediately put to reducing. — Isaac

You're failing to take into account the fact that the figure would likely be much higher if "social, economic and political effort" hadn't been "put to reducing" it.

You're failing to take into account the fact that the figure would likely be much higher if "social, economic and political effort" hadn't been "put to reducing" it. — Janus

No. I said

we took no further steps at all — Isaac

...although, had I not, my comment would still have been true. In 20 year's time the death toll would be dramatically reduced.

The point I was making is that the death toll from various preventable causes prior to 2000 was higher than the death toll from Covid-19 now. The only action we took against those causes - despite their being completely preventable - was a very slow and incremental set of changes balanced against the many other contemporary calls on our social, economic and political energy which took 20 years to get us to the lower level of preventable deaths we enjoyed by 2019.

Exactly. So it's a misleading statistic deliberately cited in terms designed to further the fear and panic. Yet you thought it a good idea to promote it. — Isaac

Someone that doesn't know or understand that there are far more Americans today than one hundred years ago has to go to himself or herself. It isn't misleading.

But naturally to some people you have to state the obvious.

Comes to my mind the calculation that there were 2,5 billion Tyrannosaurus Rex dinosaurs that lived on Earth ages ago. Of course the species wandered around for 2 million years, so actually at one time there was roughly around the World 20 000 specimens of the dinosaurs living. (Just for comparison, there are roughly 55 000 grizzly bears today in North America today).

I assume that if (or when) the million mark is reached years from now, people will likely disregard it in a similar way...as being misleading. And why wouldn't they. That HIV has killed roughly 36 million people doesn't matter either.

Someone that doesn't know or understand that there are far more Americans today than one hundred years ago has to go to himself or herself. It isn't misleading. — ssu

So your comment was meant to say "there's more deaths from Covid-19 now than deaths from Spanish Flu then, but this is completely unsurprising because there's more people now" So why post it? So that we can all nod in ennui at it's calculable typicality?

Just to make the observation note that this isn't just your average flu epidemic.

It's not completely unsurprising: just look at the flu epidemics from the Spanish flu to the present. Add to the fact that medicine and health care has rapidly improved from the start of the last Century. Every other epidemic (pandemic) has had far less deaths with (with the exception of HIV).

Just to make the observation note that this isn't just your average flu epidemic. — ssu

Who in their right mind would think that, believing the figures we've seen? There are groups who don't believe the official figures to varying degrees, but they're hardly going to be swayed by you quoting the official figures are they? Of those who are inclined to believe the official figures, do you think there's a single person who still thinks this is an average flu epidemic?

Every other epidemic (pandemic) has had far less deaths with (with the exception of HIV). — ssu

Which we'd expect given lower populations in the past. So adjusting for population size, certainly the Spanish flu counts, as does HIV, as you say, both of which dwarf COVID when looked at in terms of percentage of the population affected (2.5% for Spanish flu, 0.7% for HIV, 0.05% for COVID). So what you're saying is that COVID is killing more people than any other pandemic, except for the ones where it isn't. Well, can't argue with that.

Remind me again of the massive global effort to tackle the HIV crisis? There was that time we went into trillions of debt, and put huge social pressure on the wealthy to fund massive investment in healthcare infrastructure in the third world... oh no, wait there wasn't...I remember now, we did fuck all.

Remind me again of the massive global effort to tackle the HIV crisis? — Isaac

There was a global effort to tackle the AIDS crisis. Condoms everywhere, lots of communication, ARV drugs made affordable to the poor, the Global Fund against AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria created and well funded.

You could try a little less cynicism.

well funded. — Olivier5

$11 trillion spent on the COVID response so far.

$4 billion a year from the Global Fund against AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.

It would take over 2000 years of investment to match.

And HIV has killed about ten times as many people as a proportion of the population.

You could try a little less naive cheerleading.

So we are making progress?

Although, the investment in this vaccine technology will ultimately save lives in the future because it will speed up response to the next asshole virus.

So we are making progress? — Olivier5

No. HIV, poverty, tuberculosis, malaria, childhood obesity, heart disease, cancer, mental health issues, are all still ongoing causes of death and debilitation and we're still largely ignoring them (relative to covid).

We're not doing better, we've just created a system in which the cause with the most Facebook likes gets the fucking cavalry whilst everything else gets the home guard.

Although, the investment in this vaccine technology will ultimately save lives in the future because it will speed up response to the next asshole virus. — frank

Will it though? With rapidly dropping effectiveness against even minor variants of SARS-Cov-2, to what extent do you think it's going to be of any use against a completely different SARS altogether? We've still got to sequence the epitopes. Yes, we've got a cracking new delivery system, and that's not to be sniffed at, but as a response to epidemics in general, creating vaccines is an extremely inefficient method. As the WHO's Global Preparedness Monitoring Board have only recently reported. Our current vaccine/lockdown based methods have cost about 500 times more than non-pharmaceutical preparedness would have.

With all the attention firmly focused on vaccination, the chances of anything useful being done to prepare for the next one are remote.

No. HIV, poverty, tuberculosis, malaria, childhood obesity, heart disease, cancer, mental health issues, are all still ongoing causes of death and debilitation and we're still largely ignoring them (relative to covid).

We're not doing better, we've just created a system in which the cause with the most Facebook likes gets the fucking cavalry whilst everything else gets the home guard. — Isaac

Same old same old. It was already the case with AIDS. What happened with the creation of the Global Fund on Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria, was that instead of funding and capacitating national health systems able to tackle various health threats in, say, Africa, the Fund invested in dedicated AIDS-specific delivery channels (NGOs in particular), on the assumption that this was the real, important crisis, and that national health systems were often corrupt and ineffective... Decades later, people wish they had addressed the weaknesses of those health systems, because new threats keep coming.

COVID is not the big one. I agree with you on this. It is a rehearsal for the big one.

Will it though? With rapidly dropping effectiveness against even minor variants of SARS-Cov-2, to what extent do you think it's going to be of any use against a completely different SARS altogether? — Isaac

It makes it easier, faster, and cheaper to keep up with mutations. There's every reason to believe it will save lives going forward.

Yes, we've got a cracking new delivery system, and that's not to be sniffed at, but as a response to epidemics in general, creating vaccines is an extremely inefficient method. — Isaac

The more efficient method is to let them die in their front yards gasping for breath? Or what?

With all the attention firmly focused on vaccination, the chances of anything useful being done to prepare for the next one are remote. — Isaac

Your point was that our response to covid was disproportional to the lives we saved. I responded that the vaccine technology has only begun to save lives. That's a pretty safe bet.

Meanwhile nobody's doing anything to prepare for climate change while my once temperate zone is in the process of tropicalizing. For real.

How’re those “social responses” working out? Not so well, the last time I checked. It’s no surprise that with all the genius of public health all they could come up with was imprisoning their citizens and trying to regiment society with draconian and arbitrary edicts. Such actions suggest people are more of a problem than Covid-19.

Decades later, people wish they had addressed the weaknesses of those health systems, because new threats keep coming. — Olivier5

Yep. And here we are, one public forum among many, talking about nothing but how ordinary people not taking vaccines and not wearing masks are to blame for it all. How do you think that's going to be played by government's wanting to avoid blame for their lack of completely foreseeable failure to adequately prepare?

The more efficient method is to let them die in their front yards gasping for breath? Or what? — frank

No, the more efficient method is

National leaders and leaders of international organizations and other stakeholders take early decisive action based on science, evidence and best practice when confronted with health emergencies. They discourage the politicization of measures to protect public health, ensure social protection and promote national unity and global solidarity.

We reiterate our call for heads of government to appoint a national high-level coordinator with the authority and political accountability to lead whole-of government and whole-of-society approaches, and routinely conduct multisectoral simulation exercises to establish and maintain effective preparedness.

National leaders, manufacturers and international organizations ensure that COVID-19 vaccines and other countermeasures are allocated in a way that will have the most impact in stopping the pandemic, that access is fair and equitable, and not based on ability to pay, with health care workers and the most vulnerable having priority access. Each country should get an initial allocation of vaccine sufficient to cover at least 2% of its population, to cover frontline health care workers.

Citizens demand accountability from their governments for health emergency preparedness, which requires that governments empower their citizens and strengthen civil society.

Every individual takes responsibility for seeking and using accurate information to educate themselves, their families and their communities. They adopt health promoting behaviours and take actions to protect the most vulnerable. They advocate for these actions within their communities.

Heads of government strengthen national systems for preparedness: identifying, predicting and detecting the emergence of pathogens with pandemic potential based on a ‘One Health’ approach that integrates animal and human health; building core public health capacities and workforce for surveillance, early detection and sharing of information on outbreaks and similar events; strengthening health systems based on universal health coverage with surge capacity for clinical and supportive services; and putting in place systems of social protection to safeguard the vulnerable, leaving no one behind.

Researchers, research institutions, research funders, the private sector, governments, the World Health Organization and international organizations improve coordination and support for research and development in health emergencies and establish a sustainable mechanism to ensure rapid development, early availability, effective and equitable access to novel vaccines, therapeutics, diagnostics and non-pharmaceutical interventions for health emergencies, including capacity for testing, scaled manufacturing and distribution.

Heads of government renew their commitment to the multilateral system and strengthen WHO as an impartial and independent international organization, responsible for directing and coordinating pandemic preparedness and response.
We call for sustained investment in prevention and preparedness, commensurate with the scale of a pandemic threat.

G20 leaders ensure that adequate finance is made available now to mitigate the current and future economic and socioeconomic consequences of the pandemic.

Heads of government protect and sustain the financing of their national capacities for health emergency preparedness and response developed for COVID-19, beyond the current pandemic.

The United Nations, the World Health Organization, and the International Financing Institutions develop a mechanism for sustainable financing of global health security, which mobilizes resources on the scale and within the timeframe required, is not reliant on development assistance, recognizes preparedness as a global common good, and is not at the mercy of political and economic cycles.

The World Bank and other International Financial Institutions (IFI) make research and development (R&D) investments eligible for IFI financing and develop mechanisms to provide financing for global R&D for health emergencies.

State Parties to the International Health Regulations (IHR), or the WHO Director-General, propose amendments of the IHR to the World Health Assembly, to include: strengthening early notification and comprehensive information sharing; intermediate grading of health emergencies; development of evidence based recommendations on the role of domestic and international travel and trade recommendations; and mechanisms for assessing IHR compliance and core capacity implementation, including a universal, periodic, objective and external review mechanism.

National leaders, the World Health Organization, the United Nations and other international organizations develop predictive mechanisms for assessing multisectoral preparedness, including simulations and exercises that test and demonstrate the capacity and agility of health emergency preparedness systems, and their functioning within societies.

The Secretary-General of the United Nations, the Director-General of the World Health Organization, and the heads of International Financing Institutions convene a UN Summit on Global Health Security, with the aim of agreeing on an international framework for health emergency preparedness and response, incorporating the IHR, and including mechanisms for sustainable financing, research and development, social protection, equitable access to countermeasures for all, and mutual accountability. — WHO-Global Preparedness Monitoring Board

Oh, and whinge about people not taking vaccines... they must have missed that one.

Luckily, all those people have the decency not to die at more or less the same time or do it far away from where we live.

We're not doing better, we've just created a system in which the cause with the most Facebook likes gets the fucking cavalry whilst everything else gets the home guard. — Isaac

I've placed a lot of the blame on internet hype and social media from the start. It has allowed us to infect each other with our ignorances and stupidities much more efficienty and directly than the more traditional forms of mass media. Now, instead of generic talking heads feeding us lies and misinformation, it is our friends and family doing it.

This is an interesting report from the Telegraph. Wuhan scientists planned to release coronavirus particles into cave bats, leaked papers reveal.

New documents show that just 18 months before the first Covid cases appeared, researchers had submitted plans to release skin-penetrating nanoparticles containing "novel chimeric spike proteins" of bat coronaviruses into cave bats in Yunnan, China.

They also planned to create chimeric viruses, genetically enhanced to infect humans more easily, and requested $14 million from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to fund the work.

Papers, confirmed as genuine by a former member of the Trump administration, show they were hoping to introduce "human-specific cleavage sites" to bat coronaviruses which would make it easier for the virus to enter human cells.

People are always telling me to “trust the science” and to otherwise put faith in a category of mammals called “experts”, but then we find they’re funding gain-of-function research and planning to create “chimeric viruses” enhanced to infect humans more easily, with no doubt the purpose of protecting us from this disease.

Even more frightening:

A Covid-19 researcher from the World Health Organisation (WHO), who wished to remain anonymous, said it was alarming that the grant proposal included plans to enhance the more deadly disease of Middle-East Respiratory Syndrome (Mers).

“The scary part is they were making infectious chimeric Mers viruses,” the source said. “These viruses have a fatality rate over 30 per cent, which is at least an order of magnitude more deadly than Sars-CoV-2.

Just brilliant. Well, at least the Lancet, used as it was to promote unscientific propaganda, has started publishing some views contrary to the misinformation platter we’ve been dining from the past couple years. But, for now, they can only appeal for an “objective, open, and transparent scientific debate about the origin of SARS-CoV-2”, because while it was impossible then, it is certainly not easy now.

On July 5, 2021, a Correspondence was published in The Lancet called “Science, not speculation, is essential to determine how SARS-CoV-2 reached humans”.1 The letter recapitulates the arguments of an earlier letter (published in February, 2020) by the same authors,2 which claimed overwhelming support for the hypothesis that the novel coronavirus causing the COVID-19 pandemic originated in wildlife. The authors associated any alternative view with conspiracy theories by stating: “We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin”. The statement has imparted a silencing effect on the wider scientific debate, including among science journalists.3 The 2021 letter did not repeat the proposition that scientists open to alternative hypotheses were conspiracy theorists, but did state: “We believe the strongest clue from new, credible, and peer-reviewed evidence in the scientific literature is that the virus evolved in nature, while suggestions of a laboratory leak source of the pandemic remain without scientifically validated evidence that directly supports it in peer-reviewed scientific journals”. In fact, this argument could literally be reversed. As will be shown below, there is no direct support for the natural origin of SARS-CoV-2, and a laboratory-related accident is plausible.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02019-5/fulltext#%20

Ahh, “there is no direct support for the natural origin of SARS-CoV-2”. Imagine saying this a year ago.

No, the more efficient method is

National leaders and leaders of international organizations and other stakeholders take early decisive action based on science, evidence and best practice when confronted with health emergencies. They discourage the politicization of measures to protect public health, ensure social protection and promote national unity and global solidarity.

We reiterate our call for heads of government to appoint a national high-level coordinator with the authority and political accountability to lead whole-of government and whole-of-society approaches, and routinely conduct multisectoral simulation exercises to establish and maintain effective preparedness.

National leaders, manufacturers and international organizations ensure that COVID-19 vaccines and other countermeasures are allocated in a way that will have the most impact in stopping the pandemic, that access is fair and equitable, and not based on ability to pay, with health care workers and the most vulnerable having priority access. Each country should get an initial allocation of vaccine sufficient to cover at least 2% of its population, to cover frontline health care workers.

Citizens demand accountability from their governments for health emergency preparedness, which requires that governments empower their citizens and strengthen civil society.

Every individual takes responsibility for seeking and using accurate information to educate themselves, their families and their communities. They adopt health promoting behaviours and take actions to protect the most vulnerable. They advocate for these actions within their communities.

Heads of government strengthen national systems for preparedness: identifying, predicting and detecting the emergence of pathogens with pandemic potential based on a ‘One Health’ approach that integrates animal and human health; building core public health capacities and workforce for surveillance, early detection and sharing of information on outbreaks and similar events; strengthening health systems based on universal health coverage with surge capacity for clinical and supportive services; and putting in place systems of social protection to safeguard the vulnerable, leaving no one behind.

Researchers, research institutions, research funders, the private sector, governments, the World Health Organization and international organizations improve coordination and support for research and development in health emergencies and establish a sustainable mechanism to ensure rapid development, early availability, effective and equitable access to novel vaccines, therapeutics, diagnostics and non-pharmaceutical interventions for health emergencies, including capacity for testing, scaled manufacturing and distribution.

Heads of government renew their commitment to the multilateral system and strengthen WHO as an impartial and independent international organization, responsible for directing and coordinating pandemic preparedness and response.
We call for sustained investment in prevention and preparedness, commensurate with the scale of a pandemic threat.

G20 leaders ensure that adequate finance is made available now to mitigate the current and future economic and socioeconomic consequences of the pandemic.

Heads of government protect and sustain the financing of their national capacities for health emergency preparedness and response developed for COVID-19, beyond the current pandemic.

The United Nations, the World Health Organization, and the International Financing Institutions develop a mechanism for sustainable financing of global health security, which mobilizes resources on the scale and within the timeframe required, is not reliant on development assistance, recognizes preparedness as a global common good, and is not at the mercy of political and economic cycles.

The World Bank and other International Financial Institutions (IFI) make research and development (R&D) investments eligible for IFI financing and develop mechanisms to provide financing for global R&D for health emergencies.

State Parties to the International Health Regulations (IHR), or the WHO Director-General, propose amendments of the IHR to the World Health Assembly, to include: strengthening early notification and comprehensive information sharing; intermediate grading of health emergencies; development of evidence based recommendations on the role of domestic and international travel and trade recommendations; and mechanisms for assessing IHR compliance and core capacity implementation, including a universal, periodic, objective and external review mechanism.

National leaders, the World Health Organization, the United Nations and other international organizations develop predictive mechanisms for assessing multisectoral preparedness, including simulations and exercises that test and demonstrate the capacity and agility of health emergency preparedness systems, and their functioning within societies.

The Secretary-General of the United Nations, the Director-General of the World Health Organization, and the heads of International Financing Institutions convene a UN Summit on Global Health Security, with the aim of agreeing on an international framework for health emergency preparedness and response, incorporating the IHR, and including mechanisms for sustainable financing, research and development, social protection, equitable access to countermeasures for all, and mutual accountability.
— WHO-Global Preparedness Monitoring Board — Isaac

Some of this stuff would require a global government. Experience with the real world would convince you of that.

How’re those “social responses” working out? — NOS4A2

Could be better, could be worse?

^{• The 3 Simple Rules That Underscore the Danger of Delta (Jul 1, 2021)
• States with low vaccination numbers had Covid-19 case rates last week 3 times higher than others where people are fully vaccinated (Jul 12, 2021)
• Vast majority of ICU patients with COVID-19 are unvaccinated, ABC News survey finds (Jul 29, 2021)
• Confirmed Cases of COVID-19 Following Vaccination in Ontario: December 14, 2020 to August 7, 2021 (Aug 16, 2021)
• To protect our kids from COVID-19, we have to be grown-ups (Aug 16, 2021)
• Vaccinations Against COVID-19 May Have Averted Up To 140,000 Deaths In The United States (Aug 18, 2021)
• Largest real-world study of COVID-19 vaccine safety published (Aug 26, 2021)
• Massive randomized study is proof that surgical masks limit coronavirus spread, authors say (Sep 1, 2021)
• CDC finds unvaccinated 11 times more likely to die of COVID (Sep 11, 2021)}

Such actions suggest people are more of a problem than Covid-19. — NOS4A2

There are definitely problematic humans out there. (Are you one of them?)

^{• The Wisconsin pharmacist who sabotaged 500 vaccine doses believes the Earth is flat and that the sky is a shield to stop us seeing God, according to FBI documents (Feb 2, 2021)
• 15 Infuriating Stories About Doctors Who Had To Diagnose A COVID-19 Denier With The Coronavirus (Apr 21, 2021)
• London transport staff warned of anti-mask posters with razor blades (Sep 9, 2021)
• UPDATE: Shock in Germany after cashier shot dead in Covid mask row (Sep 21, 2021)}

Could be better, could be worse?

I see no “social responses” in your Gish gallop, unfortunately.

There are definitely problematic humans out there. (Are you one of them?)

I’m not sure criminal activity and frustrated doctors constitute enough reason to regiment the lives of all citizens.

, you asked

How’re those “social responses” working out? — NOS4A2

There were some sample moves/results. Subsequent to ...

Dump the blinkers [...] — jorndoe

We are still talking SARS-CoV-2/pandemic, right...?

Although, the investment in this vaccine technology will ultimately save lives in the future because it will speed up response to the next asshole virus. — frank

Will it?

With the new Sanofi vaccine, there are also concerns that it will simply not be profitable for pharmaceutical companies to develop vaccines against a family of rapidly mutating viruses, such as the coronaviruses.

And as for the elephant in the room:

The more efficient method is to let them die in their front yards gasping for breath? Or what? — frank

Why do people live? What do they hope to accomplish by living? Should they be helped to live, made to live, solely for the sake of living?

It would be easier to design an emergency response strategy to a health crisis if people's lives would be considered in terms of "living as a means to an end", rather than just "living for the sake of living".

It is, of course, unacceptable to bring this up in polite society. But it is precisely because we haven't cleared this up and instead made it into a taboo topic that our response to a crisis (any crisis) is bound to be ineffective.

You're failing to take into account the fact that the figure would likely be much higher if "social, economic and political effort" hadn't been "put to reducing" it. — Janus


No. I said

we took no further steps at all — Isaac


...although, had I not, my comment would still have been true. In 20 year's time the death toll would be dramatically reduced. — Isaac

"No further steps at all" is not from the section I was quoting, and is a different point. My point stands; if the effort had not been put in the death toll would likely have been much. much greater by now and into the near future.

You don't know how great the death toll could be in twenty years; it's pure conjecture. If there were no vaccination program much more virulent strains might have emerged. They might anyway. I am really struggling to see what your position actually is. Are you against the vaccination program? Do you think there is a viable alternative to it in the situation we find ourselves in?

In any case, whatever your answer to that might be, from a pragmatic point of view, if vaccination is seen as the only viable strategy and that is the strategy adopted, pretty much world-wide, then its best chance of working would be if everyone who can get vaccinated does get vaccinated. So, given that, what makes you think any individual who has no medical reason not to be vaccinated would be morally justified in refusing to play their part in the effort; to do so simply seems antisocial.

Why do people live? What do they hope to accomplish by living? Should they be helped to live, made to live, solely for the sake of living?

It would be easier to design an emergency response strategy to a health crisis if people's lives would be considered in terms of "living as a means to an end", rather than just "living for the sake of living".

It is, of course, unacceptable to bring this up in polite society. But it is precisely because we haven't cleared this up and instead made it into a taboo topic that our response to a crisis (any crisis) is bound to be ineffective — baker

I'm not sure what you're getting at here.