08-31-2020, 02:39 PM
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/51...y-strategy
Atlas is reportedly advocating a herd immunity strategy. I will be curious to see how the debate plays out.
I have some thoughts (not all of them consistent with one another):
1) At least it is a strategy, and it beats the disorganized, half-hazard approach we have seen.
2) If we are not going to be willing to do what we must to keep the virus under control, at least we can reopen.
3) You could argue that it represents surrendering to the pandemic; a recognition that as a country, we don't have what it takes to control the virus.
4) On the other hand, if the vaccine is potentially only a few months from approval, it seems to me that slowing infections as much as we can until we get the vaccine might make sense.
5) Of course, the vaccine might not work.
6) We now know that risk of reinfection is non-zero. I still think it is the exception, not the rule, but if the natural immunity is not long-lasting, the "herd immunity" strategy could be a fool's errand.
BC
Atlas is reportedly advocating a herd immunity strategy. I will be curious to see how the debate plays out.
I have some thoughts (not all of them consistent with one another):
1) At least it is a strategy, and it beats the disorganized, half-hazard approach we have seen.
2) If we are not going to be willing to do what we must to keep the virus under control, at least we can reopen.
3) You could argue that it represents surrendering to the pandemic; a recognition that as a country, we don't have what it takes to control the virus.
4) On the other hand, if the vaccine is potentially only a few months from approval, it seems to me that slowing infections as much as we can until we get the vaccine might make sense.
5) Of course, the vaccine might not work.
6) We now know that risk of reinfection is non-zero. I still think it is the exception, not the rule, but if the natural immunity is not long-lasting, the "herd immunity" strategy could be a fool's errand.
BC