| Comment | Fair enough on the first statement - I was basing it on the earlier evidence from India, but I can see now that this has been superceded in the past few days.
On common sense, it appears to me - if the goal is to suppress the transmission of the disease - that common sense is to decrease restrictions if case rates are decreasing, and to increase restrictions if cases are increasing, with the overall trend being towards easing as the vaccination coverage increases.
If you're arguing otherwise then you're clearly comfortable with unrestrained transmission of the disease because you don't think non-hospitalised cases matter. Which is clearly a problematic position because a) you're again ignoring the implications of long-term pathology which are still completely unknown, especially in children, and b) it's not just Humza it's literally every country in the world bar Brazil and the US.
So you're free to disagree on whether it's the right approach but it's entirely disingenous to suggest that the strategy isn't informed by the very simple and entirely common-sense goal, being used all across the world, of 'suppress infections pending vaccination because we still don't really know what we're dealing with'.
I want to get on with life, but ideally for the next 40 years rather than risking my long-term health to get out a few weeks earlier. |
|---|