I have, rather reluctantly, come to the conclusion that a) some kind of "herd immunity" to #COVID19 is inevitable and b) knowing this, bringing about this outcome in a reasonable fashion is the best policy.
Last spring, we were dealing with two problems in addressing #COVID19 in a rational manner:
a) ignorance about its nature and effects (it was a novel virus, after all);
b) rank denial, wishful thinking, and delusion on the part of Americans, particularly Republicans.
a) ignorance about its nature and effects (it was a novel virus, after all);
b) rank denial, wishful thinking, and delusion on the part of Americans, particularly Republicans.
We should remember how far we've come. Last spring, if anyone suggested 200,000 deaths, he'd be laughed off as a doomsayer indulging in "apocalypse porn." Today, 300,000 deaths by next summer seems baked into the cake.
In this way, #COVID19 is quite similar to the Spanish Flu, considering the advances in antibiotics, treatment, and communication. And @jollyheretic's and my suggestion that deaths due to Covid would resemble the tolls of the World Wars have proven to be quite accurate.
Last spring, I suggested a full lockdown and stay-at-home order in conjunction with a "no questions asked" basic income payment of $1,000 a month. This would have, unquestionably, been the best policy, particularly as we learned more about the virus and how to treat it.
But we ran into some problems. Americans in particular, and modern people in general, don't have the discipline for a full-lockdown. Just as important, the government doesn't have the willingness to pay people substance wages as we overcome this crisis.
Liberals freaking out about some conservative not wearing a mask at Walmart—and then rooting on the largest mass protest movement we've seen in decades—was the height of hypocrisy. It demonstrated—as if we needed more evidence—that we simply don't live in a serious country.
Whether a "democracy" can ever be a serious country was, of course, addressed definitively by the ancients...
With all of this in mind, segregating vulnerable people, wide-scale testing, and wearing masks around vulnerable people seems the most reasonable solution. We should slowly return to "normal."
A virus like this could have been stopped in its tracks—and eradication would, arguably, have been the best solution. But when the political and social will does not exist for this struggle, we have to face reality and work with what we have.
I would stress this: just as there does not seem to be the collective will to fully lock-down, actively seekingly "herd immunity" is a political non-starter, as well. The thing is, we're going to get there, whether we like it or not.
"Flattening the curve"—or, indeed, "smashing it"—was about maintaining the integrity of the medical system. That was a realistic, laudable justification for the lockdowns last spring and early summer. But at this point, continued lockdowns are only delaying the inevitable.
We have learned a tremendous amount about Coronavirus and are treating it much more effectively. Again, if we don't have the political and social will to eradicate the virus—and we clearly don't—then some kind of "herd immunity" is not just a strategy; it's *inevitable*.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
