LogFAQs > #945885900

OhhhJa posted...

It what way does fauci saying this automatically dismiss what other medical experts from universities like Oxford, Stanford, and Harvard are saying.

Because it's infinitely more in line with basic common sense: The herd immunity threshold for Covid is currently unknown, but any informed speculation as to what it might be suggests that it will be very high (due to how rapidly it spreads if left unchecked and how difficult it is to prevent that spread reactively), if it can be reached naturally at all (given how short-lived natural immunity seems to be). Blindly hurtling toward that hypothetical threshold with no idea how far off it might be or how many lives that will cost is a terrible idea. In the absence of hard evidence one way or the other (namely, "the threshold is X, here's what that implies"), I'm significantly more inclined to go with the approach that's more consistent with common sense, erring on the side of caution.

Simply, that letter is written well enough to sound convincing, but there's no actual evidence presented to support the viability of the approach is suggests. The primary basis for suggesting it is that more restrictive efforts to control the virus interfere with other medical and basic human needs, which is fundamentally flawed because it ignores that options exist for solving those challenges without giving up on restrictions entirely (e.g. online learning, dedicated cancer screening and vaccination clinics with stricter anti-Covid protocols to protect patients). Phrases like "grave injustice" are nothing more than flimsy emotional appeals that have no place in what's supposed to be a medicine-based plan of action.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.