LogFAQs > #945886249

adjl posted...

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.

I find the current approach to be quite destructive honestly and so do many other health experts. The current approach has no foreseeable endpoint. We dont even know if a vaccine for this will even be as reliable as a flu vaccine at this point or when we'll even see a safe, effective vaccine. Keeping the economy even partially locked down until that point is going to prove to be far more destructive than isolating immuno-compromised people and resuming life as normal. There are tons of industries right now that womt recover from this, at least not within a reasonable time frame