References this MIT business school article on recognizing the many forms of decisionmaking bias during a crisis. It’s discouraging to watch “status quo” and “normalcy” biases utterly paralyze otherwise effective customers and tech partners from getting their jobs done in this “new abnormal”.
"Experts" are nuts if they think that I'm going to wear a mask for the rest of my life, or forgo visiting the office, going to a concert or traveling abroad.
Willing to accept a temporary inconvenience during an emergency, but emergencies do end. Life is 100% deadly, people need to come to terms with that.
As long as any concert, large public gathering, or whatever else you want to go to inevitably results in the deaths of dozens of individuals, those events won't be going on as normal, no matter how deep you stick your head in the sand.
Are we talking about the same virus, the one with a death rate far below 1%? The one that's almost completely harmless to everyone who wasn't severly ill and going to die soon to begin with? The one that many people are immune to already thanks to cross-immunity?
Not sure what you're talking about, but we're talking about the virus that killed a million people in nine months as of October and left millions more with lifelong medical conditions.
In a community near me, a church had a revival. Estimated 100 infected from 175 in attendance. 3 members of the congregation have died so far.
Now, if you had large events with mostly young people, you probably wouldn't have as many direct deaths. But those young people probably have older family at home.
Ironically this unwillingness to accept that things have changed forever (forever here meaning next 2-3 years atleast) is exactly what the article talks about. The sooner you accept this the easier it will be to continue with life.
I’m not sure what entices people to dream about this infinite quarantine dystopia.
It’s not going to happen. Even if, at worst, all the delays, doubts and failures make it take years to get over Corona, it is not going to last forever.
The 1918 pandemic lasted roughly two years, and that was during a world war and with far less knowledge, technology and international cooperation than we have today.
Covid-19 will not be over by new year's - it will certainly shape our lifes in some form for the next year or more and there will certainly be many changes in outlook and policy that will stick around - but unless some fundamental discovery upends vaccine development, I don't see any reason why social distancing would become the new permanent way of living.
As I understood it, this is where herd immunity comes in. The term got a bad reputation due to some politicians wanting to archive natural herd immunity, i.e. just letting the disease infect everyone - and accepting the resulting death toll.
But in the end, herd immunity is what we want to archive - through vaccination, like we do with any other disease. So I believe if enough young, healthy people are vaccinated, so that herd immunity is archived, this will also lower the risk enough for old and vulnerable people so that restrictions can be lifted.
Of course what's true is that the virus will likely never die out like SARS did and will stay with us forever in some form. However, it will likely be less deadly (through mutation and our knowledge of treatment) and we can make it less contagious (through vaccination) - so at some point hopefully it can be managed like an "ordinary" disease and not like a natural disaster.
But this means the end of the pandemic is less clear-cut than if the virus would simply die out. So scientists and politicians will need to find good criteria for when the pandemic can be declared "over" and restrictions can be safely lifted without them having to backtrack a few months later.
What will definitely stay though are changes in psychology and personal outlook and a profoundly shifted overton window. Locking down all if society if a threat demands it is now back in the table of options. However, this doesn't have to be bad it's done in a regulated and democratic fashion.
That really depends on the vaccine. What you are referring to is sterilizing immunity. Ie you don’t get sick at all and neither can you pass it on. The hopes for this kind of a vaccine aren’t very high.
> The hopes for this kind of a vaccine aren’t very high.
Why actually? SARS2 is extremely contagious and it attaches to a receptor which is involved in various vital systems in the human body and can cause a wide range of life-threatening symptoms. This is what makes this virus so dangerous. However, apart from that, it's an "ordinary" coronavirus: It's not a retrovirus like AIDS and does not mutate as fast as rhinoviruses. I've not read any news about serious complications in vaccine development either. So what would make developing a vaccine so particular hard here?
> What you are referring to is sterilizing immunity.
Why would this be a requirement? The point of herd immunity is that it also works if less than 100% of the population is immune, as long as the probability of transmission is lowered enough to effectively stop the spread. A vaccine that would lower the probability of infection enough seems to be able to archive the same.
21 comments
[ 1.5 ms ] story [ 58.9 ms ] threadReferences this MIT business school article on recognizing the many forms of decisionmaking bias during a crisis. It’s discouraging to watch “status quo” and “normalcy” biases utterly paralyze otherwise effective customers and tech partners from getting their jobs done in this “new abnormal”.
https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/how-to-make-better-decis...
"Suprisingly non-trite article".... Wtf are you talking baout? Never going back to normal? Maybe not in the minds of the brainwashed
Willing to accept a temporary inconvenience during an emergency, but emergencies do end. Life is 100% deadly, people need to come to terms with that.
There are no facts I'm aware of the back this up. Existence of a comorbidity is not a severe illness.
Now, if you had large events with mostly young people, you probably wouldn't have as many direct deaths. But those young people probably have older family at home.
It’s not going to happen. Even if, at worst, all the delays, doubts and failures make it take years to get over Corona, it is not going to last forever.
But to fantasize that people will not be meeting, dancing, drinking together is just so bizarre.
Covid-19 will not be over by new year's - it will certainly shape our lifes in some form for the next year or more and there will certainly be many changes in outlook and policy that will stick around - but unless some fundamental discovery upends vaccine development, I don't see any reason why social distancing would become the new permanent way of living.
But in the end, herd immunity is what we want to archive - through vaccination, like we do with any other disease. So I believe if enough young, healthy people are vaccinated, so that herd immunity is archived, this will also lower the risk enough for old and vulnerable people so that restrictions can be lifted.
Of course what's true is that the virus will likely never die out like SARS did and will stay with us forever in some form. However, it will likely be less deadly (through mutation and our knowledge of treatment) and we can make it less contagious (through vaccination) - so at some point hopefully it can be managed like an "ordinary" disease and not like a natural disaster.
But this means the end of the pandemic is less clear-cut than if the virus would simply die out. So scientists and politicians will need to find good criteria for when the pandemic can be declared "over" and restrictions can be safely lifted without them having to backtrack a few months later.
What will definitely stay though are changes in psychology and personal outlook and a profoundly shifted overton window. Locking down all if society if a threat demands it is now back in the table of options. However, this doesn't have to be bad it's done in a regulated and democratic fashion.
Why actually? SARS2 is extremely contagious and it attaches to a receptor which is involved in various vital systems in the human body and can cause a wide range of life-threatening symptoms. This is what makes this virus so dangerous. However, apart from that, it's an "ordinary" coronavirus: It's not a retrovirus like AIDS and does not mutate as fast as rhinoviruses. I've not read any news about serious complications in vaccine development either. So what would make developing a vaccine so particular hard here?
> What you are referring to is sterilizing immunity.
Why would this be a requirement? The point of herd immunity is that it also works if less than 100% of the population is immune, as long as the probability of transmission is lowered enough to effectively stop the spread. A vaccine that would lower the probability of infection enough seems to be able to archive the same.