Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Grey Templar wrote:
The reason we shouldn't be focusing on a vaccine for COVID-19 is because given what we know about other coronaviruses a vaccine has multiple issues that make it a waste of time.

1) It may not be possible at all. Given the lack of past success in making coronavirus vaccines.

Just because we haven't been successful before doesn't mean it shouldn't be tried. It means we need to be realistic about the expectations, but not that it shouldn't be attempted.

2) If a vaccine does get developed, it will likely be ineffective at protecting people.

Then it wouldn't be a vaccine in the way people mean when they use the term.

3) Finally, even if the vaccine is possible and does eventually get developed, it will be developed long after this crisis has passed. We will have a vaccine for a disease that no longer plagues us.

If there's no vaccine, this thing has every chance of popping right back up unless we're going to bite the eugenics bullet and actively expose everyone and accept the gargantuan numbers of potential casualties. It may not, and it doesn't necessarily mean we should continue doing what we're currently doing forever, but it doesn't mean a vaccine shouldn't be sought either.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
The reason we shouldn't be focusing on a vaccine for COVID-19 is because given what we know about other coronaviruses a vaccine has multiple issues that make it a waste of time.

1) It may not be possible at all. Given the lack of past success in making coronavirus vaccines.

Just because we haven't been successful before doesn't mean it shouldn't be tried. It means we need to be realistic about the expectations, but not that it shouldn't be attempted.

2) If a vaccine does get developed, it will likely be ineffective at protecting people.

Then it wouldn't be a vaccine in the way people mean when they use the term.

There are many vaccines which only provide temporary protection. And many vaccines which only have moderate success rates in actually conferring immunities.

Flu vaccine efficacy hovers around the 30-50% range. Flu viruses are the same family of virus as COVID-19, we should expect a similar efficacy of any potential COVID-19 vaccine. IE: best case scenario it maybe works 50% of the time.

3) Finally, even if the vaccine is possible and does eventually get developed, it will be developed long after this crisis has passed. We will have a vaccine for a disease that no longer plagues us.

If there's no vaccine, this thing has every chance of popping right back up unless we're going to bite the eugenics bullet and actively expose everyone and accept the gargantuan numbers of potential casualties. It may not, and it doesn't necessarily mean we should continue doing what we're currently doing forever, but it doesn't mean a vaccine shouldn't be sought either.

Given how contagious it is, its not really a question of if everybody is going to be exposed. Everybody on this planet WILL be exposed to COVID-19 within the next couple of years with the exception of any totally isolated societies. All the elderly in the old folks homes, they're all going to be exposed. Its just a question of now or a few months down the road. A vaccine isn't going to happen in time for them. The best that can be done is take steps that stagger their exposure. Preferably steps that don't also involve the healthier individuals in society being unable to work to feed their children.

That is the most reasonable variation of pro-reopening; understanding and pushing that -wherever it is reasonably possible- we want to let people back out as soon and as much as we can.

I agree on that somewhat. But if you tried to inform the population that now, there would be uproar, especially, as others have mentioned, given how politicians have painted it as though a vaccine is an answer.

I wouldn't say research is totally pointless though. Hopefully it might yield results for future problems.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
That is the most reasonable variation of pro-reopening; understanding and pushing that -wherever it is reasonably possible- we want to let people back out as soon and as much as we can.

We shouldn't have locked down completely to begin with. The only places that should have locked down are old folks homes and, maybe, schools. Then we could have focused resources on protecting them with minimal disruption on larger society. Given the vulnerable sectors of society free grocery and other essential supply delivery and continual health monitoring. But let anybody willing to take the risk and continue as normal do so.

Then we wouldn't have the economic woes we do now.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
That is the most reasonable variation of pro-reopening; understanding and pushing that -wherever it is reasonably possible- we want to let people back out as soon and as much as we can.

We shouldn't have locked down completely to begin with. The only places that should have locked down are old folks homes and, maybe, schools. Then we could have focused resources on protecting them with minimal disruption on larger society. Given the vulnerable sectors of society free grocery and other essential supply delivery and continual health monitoring. But let anybody willing to take the risk and continue as normal do so.

Then we wouldn't have the economic woes we do now.

The people who have spent their lives studying the subject and preparing for this exact circumstance tend to think differently, the overwhelming majority for that matter. But you are sure the circumstance is different, so I am intensely curious as to how you arrived at that conclusion.

 Grey Templar wrote:
3) Finally, even if the vaccine is possible and does eventually get developed, it will be developed long after this crisis has passed.

The crisis will end with vaccine or death of humanity. The virus isn't going away on it's own so it's vaccine or it's with us as long as humans exists. At which point vaccine starts to look good.

You assume this is just few month or years and then virus goes away. Sorry to break it to you but as your knowledge of viruses is clearly zero it has to be said: viruses don't work that way. They are with us. It's not going away. If we don't get vaccine it will not leave humans. It will be here.

tneva82 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
3) Finally, even if the vaccine is possible and does eventually get developed, it will be developed long after this crisis has passed.

The crisis will end with vaccine or death of humanity. The virus isn't going away on it's own so it's vaccine or it's with us as long as humans exists. At which point vaccine starts to look good.

You assume this is just few month or years and then virus goes away. Sorry to break it to you but as your knowledge of viruses is clearly zero it has to be said: viruses don't work that way. They are with us. It's not going away. If we don't get vaccine it will not leave humans. It will be here.

Death of humanity!
Some* viruses very much do work that way. Even HIV, a virus that you could consider having reached a pretty good balance between virulence and host longevity, can become less lethal, shown in this study.

https://www.nhs.uk/news/medical-practice/hiv-evolving-into-less-deadly-form/

With Covid, either our immune system will adapt, herd immunity will start to kick in, or the virus will become less deadly through mutation. even less than it already is. (97->99% recovery rate remember) or a combination of those things. Either way, the worldwide death rate will reach the top of the bell curve, plateau, and start to fall sooner or later, probably with a shallower decline. We're not going to see death rates rise forever.

I'm amazed that being sceptical of our ability to find a vaccine, or whether it is even practicable to try equates to anti vaxxer in your mind. its fascinating to watch.

*water or mosquito borne virus often buck the trend, due to having more convenient vectors than human to human.

tneva82 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
3) Finally, even if the vaccine is possible and does eventually get developed, it will be developed long after this crisis has passed.

The crisis will end with vaccine or death of humanity.

This insanely hyperbolic. I think you're in the right side of the argument but you don't half undermine yourself with this stuff.

The virus isn't going away on it's own so it's vaccine or it's with us as long as humans exists. At which point vaccine starts to look good.

That doesn't mean everyone dies. Even in the absolute worst case scenario, were everyone to decide to just let the virus have at it and stop treating people and many, many millions of people die, society doesn't cease to be.

nfe wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
3) Finally, even if the vaccine is possible and does eventually get developed, it will be developed long after this crisis has passed.

The crisis will end with vaccine or death of humanity.

This insanely hyperbolic. I think you're in the right side of the argument but you don't half undermine yourself with this stuff.

The virus isn't going away on it's own so it's vaccine or it's with us as long as humans exists. At which point vaccine starts to look good.

That doesn't mean everyone dies. Even in the absolute worst case scenario, were everyone to decide to just let the virus have at it and stop treating people and many, many millions of people die, society doesn't cease to be.

I didn't read that as tneva saying that corona will wipe out humanity, just that if we do not develop a vaccine then it will be with us until humanity dies.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

nfe wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
3) Finally, even if the vaccine is possible and does eventually get developed, it will be developed long after this crisis has passed.

The crisis will end with vaccine or death of humanity.

This insanely hyperbolic. I think you're in the right side of the argument but you don't half undermine yourself with this stuff.

The virus isn't going away on it's own so it's vaccine or it's with us as long as humans exists. At which point vaccine starts to look good.

That doesn't mean everyone dies. Even in the absolute worst case scenario, were everyone to decide to just let the virus have at it and stop treating people and many, many millions of people die, society doesn't cease to be.

I didn't read that as tneva saying that corona will wipe out humanity, just that if we do not develop a vaccine then it will be with us until humanity dies.

See I was willing to field that, but he said the 'crisis' will be here, which, arguably, it likely wont be a crisis for that whole time. semantics maybe

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:


With Covid, either our immune system will adapt, herd immunity will start to kick in, or the virus will become less deadly through mutation. even less than it already is. (97->99% recovery rate remember) or a combination of those things. Either way, the worldwide death rate will reach the top of the bell curve, plateau, and start to fall sooner or later, probably with a shallower decline. We're not going to see death rates rise forever.
.

Not to directly pick on you but herd immunity, immune system adaptation, mutation of the virus comes up over and over again.

For advocates of herd immunity as a magic bullet, how many deaths are acceptable? Which member of you family or group of close friends is an acceptable death to ensure the virus is 'defeated'.

I am really curious.

 Mr. Burning wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:


With Covid, either our immune system will adapt, herd immunity will start to kick in, or the virus will become less deadly through mutation. even less than it already is. (97->99% recovery rate remember) or a combination of those things. Either way, the worldwide death rate will reach the top of the bell curve, plateau, and start to fall sooner or later, probably with a shallower decline. We're not going to see death rates rise forever.
.

Not to directly pick on you but herd immunity, immune system adaptation, mutation of the virus comes up over and over again.

For advocates of herd immunity as a magic bullet, how many deaths are acceptable? Which member of you family or group of close friends is an acceptable death to ensure the virus is 'defeated'.

I am really curious.

I'm not touting it as a magic bullet. I believe it will happen naturally, pretty much regardless of our actions, and that its something that must factor into any considerations of strategy when talking about the virus. but your question is one posed by quite a few as an attempt to rebuke this, and whilst understandable, its still not really anything more than an appeal to emotion. My views don't make me a 'social darwinist.' I don't want any of my family or friends to die. I dont want anyone to die. As I've said before, you don't really need to state this. you can generally assume it as a given. its not really a case of stating how many deaths are acceptable. Unfortunately, nature does as it does, and If I am unfortunate to lose someone to the virus, I dont think it would change my viewpoint. That of course is not to say that I advocate doing nothing. need to get that in there.

Coronaviruses have been notoriously difficult to develop vaccines for in the past and corvid 19 is probably no different.

Having said that, I really hope they can break the trend on that this time...

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:

 Mr. Burning wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:


With Covid, either our immune system will adapt, herd immunity will start to kick in, or the virus will become less deadly through mutation. even less than it already is. (97->99% recovery rate remember) or a combination of those things. Either way, the worldwide death rate will reach the top of the bell curve, plateau, and start to fall sooner or later, probably with a shallower decline. We're not going to see death rates rise forever.
.

Not to directly pick on you but herd immunity, immune system adaptation, mutation of the virus comes up over and over again.

For advocates of herd immunity as a magic bullet, how many deaths are acceptable? Which member of you family or group of close friends is an acceptable death to ensure the virus is 'defeated'.

I am really curious.

I'm not touting it as a magic bullet. I believe it will happen naturally, pretty much regardless of our actions, and that its something that must factor into any considerations of strategy when talking about the virus. but your question is one posed by quite a few as an attempt to rebuke this, and whilst understandable, its still not really anything more than an appeal to emotion. My views don't make me a 'social darwinist.' I don't want any of my family or friends to die. I dont want anyone to die. As I've said before, you don't really need to state this. you can generally assume it as a given. its not really a case of stating how many deaths are acceptable. Unfortunately, nature does as it does, and If I am unfortunate to lose someone to the virus, I dont think it would change my viewpoint.

Sure, no one wants anyone to die. However, when we are talking about Herd Immunity, you have to expect people are going to die. Who are you willing to lose?

You can see why people are not a fan of this approach and prefer to cling to the hope of "Vaccine". The idea that you can just go about and do whatever, and it is up to high risk people to take care of themselves for the good of the "herd" is where we have to accept that people will die. Why? Even if you are at low risk, you (the generic YOU) will act as a disease vector that will carry it to others and infect and possibly kill those High-Risk people. Ultimately, High-Risk people have no say in the matter as they are the minority.

High risk people are expected to "self-quarantine" or die forever; so low risk folks can live their "normal" lives with no lifestyle change. That is the societal challenge we face. Who are the winners and who are the losers from COVID-19? This time we are not talking about economic winners and losers, we are talking about the first in the sentence of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness".

There is no simple answer, so anyone who claims to have one is a liar or is fooling themselves.

 Easy E wrote:


Sure, no one wants anyone to die. However, when we are talking about Herd Immunity, you have to expect people are going to die. Who are you willing to lose?

You can see why people are not a fan of this approach and prefer to cling to the hope of "Vaccine". The idea that you can just go about and do whatever, and it is up to high risk people to take care of themselves for the good of the "herd" is where we have to accept that people will die. Why? Even if you are at low risk, you (the generic YOU) will act as a disease vector that will carry it to others and infect and possibly kill those High-Risk people. Ultimately, High-Risk people have no say in the matter as they are the minority.

High risk people are expected to "self-quarantine" or die forever; so low risk folks can live their "normal" lives with no lifestyle change. That is the societal challenge we face. Who are the winners and who are the losers from COVID-19? This time we are not talking about economic winners and losers, we are talking about the first in the sentence of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness".

There is no simple answer, so anyone who claims to have one is a liar or is fooling themselves.

I'm not willing to lose anyone. that question is not really pertinent to the debate. its an appeal to emotion as I said.

But I dont disagree with anything you've said. you are correct. This is where the issue lies. do we shut down everything? for a small minority of at risk people? in this situation, yes, we have already done so. but I think most rational people don't believe it can stay this way indefinitely. Something is going to have to give.

But like anything in this modern time, it becomes black vs white. Lives saved vs the Economy, Pro vs Anti Lockdown. And then it becomes partisan political, with people aligning themselves with a 'side' and assigning people who disagree to the other, often based on previous politics, which is beyond ridiculous, but you see it before your eyes. There needs to be balanced consideration of all factors. The potential of saving lives, Science, economics, and as always, morality and ethics.

Simply stating 'if it saves one life its worth it' is just as unhelpful as an economist coldly calculating QALY and saying that some lives arent worth however much money spent on treatment.

But this isn't happening. The lines are drawn and the trenches dug, and thats the problem.

We're humans, supposedly the most intelligent species on the planet. We can figure this out if we apply ourselves.

I took a job a few states over last week during COVID. It's within the same company but the role is fully remote now. The role would have never opened up at my current office since there hasnt been an open slot for 4 years.

The promotion would have never happened since I would never move to the rural location their office is at. My department has a dozen or so employees from India that work remote - so it's not that outside the box people in the US wouldnt work outside their own state if its full remote.

Extremely lucky but who knows if this is a new thing for others. You could work full time for a company not anywhere near you.

If a vaccine is not possible then neither is herd immunity. Vaccination works by training our immune systems to become immune to a virus. If a vaccine is not possible, then it is because our immune systems cannot become immune to it or because the virus mutates too fast or is too diverse for immunity to stick. As everyone's favorite example: AIDS. We have no vaccine for the HIV; and infected people do not recover and thus never become immune. There is no such thing as herd immunity as far as the HIV is concerned.

Herd immunity is basically the stone age equivalent of vaccination, it achieves the same thing even with a far more primitive and brutish approach and thus the properties a virus may have that makes vaccination unlikely applies tenfold to herd immunity. So If a vaccine is not possible in a realistic time frame, then neither is herd immunity and we will have to learn to live with COVID-19 for the foreseeable future. With how infectious it, that may end being true even if a vaccine is developed.

 Tyran wrote:
If a vaccine is not possible then neither is herd immunity. Vaccination work by training our immune systems to become immune to a virus.

If a vaccine is not possible, then it is because our immune systems cannot become immune to it or because the virus mutates to fast or is to diverse for immunity to stick.

If a vaccine cannot be developed, then herd immunity will never kick in and we will have to learn to live with COVID-19 for the foreseeable future.

With how infectious it, that may end being true even if a vaccine is developed.

I'm fairly sure that has already been covered. it is possible to gain herd immunity without vaccines. vaccines just make the process much quicker and safer.
The question is how long human immunity lasts.

The rest, I can concur with to some degree. We will have to live with it, although I put hope in the views of Prof Karol Sikora, that it will become less lethal and fade into the background somewhat.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
If a vaccine is not possible then neither is herd immunity. Vaccination work by training our immune systems to become immune to a virus.

If a vaccine is not possible, then it is because our immune systems cannot become immune to it or because the virus mutates to fast or is to diverse for immunity to stick.

If a vaccine cannot be developed, then herd immunity will never kick in and we will have to learn to live with COVID-19 for the foreseeable future.

With how infectious it, that may end being true even if a vaccine is developed.

I'm fairly sure that has already been covered. it is possible to gain herd immunity without vaccines. vaccines just make the process much quicker and safer.
The question is how long human immunity lasts.

The rest, I can concur with to some degree. We will have to live with it, although I put hope in the views of Prof Karol Sikora, that it will become less lethal and fade into the background somewhat.

The argument isn't that herd immunity requires a vaccine, it's that what makes herd immunity and vaccines work is the same (the ability of human immune systems to adapt to the virus) - so if one is impossible so is the other.

There was one doctor speaking on CNN recently who explained that the ‘corona’ tips on the virus which it uses to attack cells and will be the target for antibodies are quite distinguishable and thus he was quite confident a vaccine could be developed eventually. I’m really hoping that he’s right.

Thats good.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
That is the most reasonable variation of pro-reopening; understanding and pushing that -wherever it is reasonably possible- we want to let people back out as soon and as much as we can.

We shouldn't have locked down completely to begin with. The only places that should have locked down are old folks homes and, maybe, schools. Then we could have focused resources on protecting them with minimal disruption on larger society. Given the vulnerable sectors of society free grocery and other essential supply delivery and continual health monitoring. But let anybody willing to take the risk and continue as normal do so.

Then we wouldn't have the economic woes we do now.

The people who have spent their lives studying the subject and preparing for this exact circumstance tend to think differently, the overwhelming majority for that matter. But you are sure the circumstance is different, so I am intensely curious as to how you arrived at that conclusion.

I have that conclusion because I have multiple friends and acquaintances who are out of work because of this lockdown. As a consequence are in fear of being unable to feed their children or pay their rent beyond the next few weeks. A couple of them have actually lost their jobs because the business didn't survive. And the unemployment system is so broken down because millions are trying to file for it.

If it was my kids, I certainly wouldn't consider the ability for others to feel safe to be more important than my ability to feed my kids or keep them in a house. I'd say screw your elderly relatives, screw your desire to "feel safe".

 Grey Templar wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
That is the most reasonable variation of pro-reopening; understanding and pushing that -wherever it is reasonably possible- we want to let people back out as soon and as much as we can.

We shouldn't have locked down completely to begin with. The only places that should have locked down are old folks homes and, maybe, schools. Then we could have focused resources on protecting them with minimal disruption on larger society. Given the vulnerable sectors of society free grocery and other essential supply delivery and continual health monitoring. But let anybody willing to take the risk and continue as normal do so.

Then we wouldn't have the economic woes we do now.

The people who have spent their lives studying the subject and preparing for this exact circumstance tend to think differently, the overwhelming majority for that matter. But you are sure the circumstance is different, so I am intensely curious as to how you arrived at that conclusion.

I have that conclusion because I have multiple friends and acquaintances who are out of work because of this lockdown. As a consequence are in fear of being unable to feed their children or pay their rent beyond the next few weeks. A couple of them have actually lost their jobs because the business didn't survive. And the unemployment system is so broken down because millions are trying to file for it.

If it was my kids, I certainly wouldn't consider the ability for others to feel safe to be more important than my ability to feed my kids or keep them in a house. I'd say screw your elderly relatives, screw your desire to "feel safe".

The grown-up response to inadequate state support for people struggling to feed their families is 'improve state support for people struggling to feed their families' not 'tough gak if your immunocompromised kid dies'.

That's a really awful situation to be in. I would argue that individuals shouldn't be forced to fall on each other over who gets to survive or not, and that government should support so that you don't have to go out and work - get sick, bring it home, then that be responsible for the death of a friend or relative.

I think that's something definitely that the US is going to have to find some way of dealing with, as with every country that has less of a social welfare system or safety net.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
That is the most reasonable variation of pro-reopening; understanding and pushing that -wherever it is reasonably possible- we want to let people back out as soon and as much as we can.

We shouldn't have locked down completely to begin with. The only places that should have locked down are old folks homes and, maybe, schools. Then we could have focused resources on protecting them with minimal disruption on larger society. Given the vulnerable sectors of society free grocery and other essential supply delivery and continual health monitoring. But let anybody willing to take the risk and continue as normal do so.

Then we wouldn't have the economic woes we do now.

The people who have spent their lives studying the subject and preparing for this exact circumstance tend to think differently, the overwhelming majority for that matter. But you are sure the circumstance is different, so I am intensely curious as to how you arrived at that conclusion.

I have that conclusion because I have multiple friends and acquaintances who are out of work because of this lockdown. As a consequence are in fear of being unable to feed their children or pay their rent beyond the next few weeks. A couple of them have actually lost their jobs because the business didn't survive. And the unemployment system is so broken down because millions are trying to file for it.

If it was my kids, I certainly wouldn't consider the ability for others to feel safe to be more important than my ability to feed my kids or keep them in a house. I'd say screw your elderly relatives, screw your desire to "feel safe".

And that's how you make a pandemic worse, and has little or nor bearing on the scientific or data driven merits, it's all feels. While the frustration is certainly understandable, everyone knows people in such situations, it's impossible not to. However, at the same time, a lot of these jobs would be lost regardless, even without legal restrictions on operations to deal with, there just isn't going to be the customer base to keep many business/organizations in operation for a variety of reasons (customers concerned about exposure risks, changing work and commuting habits, anxiety about spending, etc), or just as importantly, have insurance that will cover pandemic related issues which they can be held liable for.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
We will have to live with it, although I put hope in the views of Prof Karol Sikora, that it will become less lethal and fade into the background somewhat.

The issue with this is that mutations are random. What we can rely on is that the mutations that are beneficial to the virus will end up being dominant as that strain will get to replicate itself more successfully.

Now, you are focusing on the virus becoming less deadly. Yes, that allows the virus to replicate more as its hosts don't die.

But that is not the only possible mutation that could be beneficial to the virus. It could mutate to gain new transmission vectors or more resistance to UV light, for example. These will both allow it to more effectively infect people and spread without a compromise in its deadliness.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
...And the unemployment system is so broken down because millions are trying to file for it.

Then vote for people who will fix your unemployment system and other social programs which would help alleviate suffering in this kind of scenario.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:

 Easy E wrote:


Sure, no one wants anyone to die. However, when we are talking about Herd Immunity, you have to expect people are going to die. Who are you willing to lose?

You can see why people are not a fan of this approach and prefer to cling to the hope of "Vaccine". The idea that you can just go about and do whatever, and it is up to high risk people to take care of themselves for the good of the "herd" is where we have to accept that people will die. Why? Even if you are at low risk, you (the generic YOU) will act as a disease vector that will carry it to others and infect and possibly kill those High-Risk people. Ultimately, High-Risk people have no say in the matter as they are the minority.

High risk people are expected to "self-quarantine" or die forever; so low risk folks can live their "normal" lives with no lifestyle change. That is the societal challenge we face. Who are the winners and who are the losers from COVID-19? This time we are not talking about economic winners and losers, we are talking about the first in the sentence of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness".

There is no simple answer, so anyone who claims to have one is a liar or is fooling themselves.

I'm not willing to lose anyone. that question is not really pertinent to the debate. its an appeal to emotion as I said.

I know for me it is a matter of emotion since my wife is a High-Risk person, because she got Type I diabetes when she was 4 years old. Nothing she could do about it.

That makes the question VERY personal. I have to admit that it is hard NOT to see people ignoring the basic social distancing and CDC recommendations as a personal attack against my family. Every time I see or read someone advocating for "no masks", "herd immunity' or "no vaccine" they are essentially saying they want my wife to die or live like a leper for the rest of her life. What crime did she commit? She was born..... I really wish 40% of the population was not a direct threat to my wife's life.

Is an appeal to emotion or empathy a flaw or is it what makes us humans and not computers?

To me the issue isn't the economy, it is the fact that no one (Government or voters) wants to provide a safety net while we resolve this issue. Instead, it is everyone for themselves with no testing, no trace and quarantine, and no effort to locate and isolate those who are sick. There is no UBI while forced into isolation, worker protection, or health care without a job. Instead, we are all forced into this false decision of "working" or "Quarantining". Working means exposing yourself and loved ones so you can pay rent and buy food vs. saving others but risking your own basic needs. That is a false choice, so why do we accept this framing? Perhaps we need more empathy/emotion in the discussion, because these false choices are not acceptable.

That is exactly hpw I feel about reopening.
People think only of themselves and their immediate family, as far as others are concerned their just NPCs in a game.

 Easy E wrote:
To me the issue isn't the economy, it is the fact that no one (Government or voters) wants to provide a safety net while we resolve this issue. Instead, it is everyone for themselves with no testing, no trace and quarantine, and no effort to locate and isolate those who are sick. There is no UBI while forced into isolation, worker protection, or health care without a job. Instead, we are all forced into this false decision of "working" or "Quarantining". Working means exposing yourself and loved ones so you can pay rent and buy food vs. saving others but risking your own basic needs. That is a false choice, so why do we accept this framing? Perhaps we need more empathy/emotion in the discussion, because these false choices are not acceptable.

"No one" is a bit of a misnomer. The US did just pass a bill in the house expanding relief for folks effected by the lockdown. It's just not going to pass the Senate. Similarly, a lot of states have functional unemployment systems as well. It's just the ones that (purposefully) don't have kind of shown how terrible of an idea it is to artificially lower your unemployment numbers by making it impossible to actually make a claim.