My figure is the 'next big thing' will be the price those who refused to vaccinate will find they will pay - no travel to some countries, restricted from airplanes, no access to some activities (concerts, plays) etc.
The case for social responsibility will only get stronger. They may well face a backlash (on a scale, more than smokers, less than pedophiles) personally as well. The balance is tipping away from them as more and more of those reticent or fearful join the throng (thanks to information lile you offer) and buy in to vaccine protection.
It sure feels like there is cause for optimism. The graphs in Canadaland are going the right way for the most part. The one thing I really dont have a sense of is the break down of Covidiots vs doomsday addicts vs everyone else. Are these fringes really any significant number? Or are they simply the loudest ? However, if a poll of Canadians who say they intend to get a vaccine when its available to them is any indication, we are indeed in a relatively good place. Only 12% say they wont according to an Angus Reid poll in March.
To ignore the existence of Atlantic Canada as you talk about Get-to-zero being a "fantasy", and "impossible in a state like Canada", is frankly bizarre.
If the article had tossed in a single sentence, that "The Atlantic experience is only possible because they're hard to get to" would at least have addressed that issue (if not to my satisfaction), but Gerson pretended it didn't exist.
Also, Australia had a get to zero that worked, and they have quite a lot of tourism, including from China. They seem remote from here, but they're not remote from that side of the world. When they did a lockdown, they do a REAL lockdown. It's not like you can call Australians, of all people, a bunch of docile, hive-mind types with no sense of personal independence.
BC and Alberta are right beside each other. BC has the larger number of tourists, especially from Asia and America. Yet we've had more successful lockdowns, a far better pandemic. Jen is talking about people as if they were some fixed object, when clearly they respond to smart messaging and clear rules.
My prediction is the pandemic will be over well before the media tells us it's over. For too many it's been their bread and butter, especially after the end of the Trump era.
Both the anti-lockdown and COVID zero crowds struggle with risk assessment. The anti-lockdown crowd has regularly downplayed risk with inaccurate data or a lack of context for the risk. Even when they claim they accept the risk, you quickly realize that they’re really denying the risk. The COVID zero crowd wants the unobtainable goal of *no* risk whatsoever. They want governments to force everybody to engage in a maximalist position without considering any costs other than the potential risk to their own health. They agonize over even small risks related to vaccines because of that expectation of perfection. I’m not sure that scolding either crowd is going to be productive. Probably the best approach is to provide information for context: compare COVID and vaccine risks to everyday activities. Provide graphical explanations of how layers of mitigations combine to reduce risks.
Excellent take. I particularly liked the description of the two fringes: the anti-lockdown crowd and the preening, safety-obsessed, lockdown at any cost crowd. Both are problematic, and most of us fall somewhere in the middle. We realize that lockdowns are needed to a certain extent, but also know that they won't provide victory. Curiously, if we couldn't manufacture a vaccine, I wonder what we would do.
Good analysis Jen.
My figure is the 'next big thing' will be the price those who refused to vaccinate will find they will pay - no travel to some countries, restricted from airplanes, no access to some activities (concerts, plays) etc.
The case for social responsibility will only get stronger. They may well face a backlash (on a scale, more than smokers, less than pedophiles) personally as well. The balance is tipping away from them as more and more of those reticent or fearful join the throng (thanks to information lile you offer) and buy in to vaccine protection.
It sure feels like there is cause for optimism. The graphs in Canadaland are going the right way for the most part. The one thing I really dont have a sense of is the break down of Covidiots vs doomsday addicts vs everyone else. Are these fringes really any significant number? Or are they simply the loudest ? However, if a poll of Canadians who say they intend to get a vaccine when its available to them is any indication, we are indeed in a relatively good place. Only 12% say they wont according to an Angus Reid poll in March.
To ignore the existence of Atlantic Canada as you talk about Get-to-zero being a "fantasy", and "impossible in a state like Canada", is frankly bizarre.
If the article had tossed in a single sentence, that "The Atlantic experience is only possible because they're hard to get to" would at least have addressed that issue (if not to my satisfaction), but Gerson pretended it didn't exist.
Also, Australia had a get to zero that worked, and they have quite a lot of tourism, including from China. They seem remote from here, but they're not remote from that side of the world. When they did a lockdown, they do a REAL lockdown. It's not like you can call Australians, of all people, a bunch of docile, hive-mind types with no sense of personal independence.
BC and Alberta are right beside each other. BC has the larger number of tourists, especially from Asia and America. Yet we've had more successful lockdowns, a far better pandemic. Jen is talking about people as if they were some fixed object, when clearly they respond to smart messaging and clear rules.
My prediction is the pandemic will be over well before the media tells us it's over. For too many it's been their bread and butter, especially after the end of the Trump era.
Both the anti-lockdown and COVID zero crowds struggle with risk assessment. The anti-lockdown crowd has regularly downplayed risk with inaccurate data or a lack of context for the risk. Even when they claim they accept the risk, you quickly realize that they’re really denying the risk. The COVID zero crowd wants the unobtainable goal of *no* risk whatsoever. They want governments to force everybody to engage in a maximalist position without considering any costs other than the potential risk to their own health. They agonize over even small risks related to vaccines because of that expectation of perfection. I’m not sure that scolding either crowd is going to be productive. Probably the best approach is to provide information for context: compare COVID and vaccine risks to everyday activities. Provide graphical explanations of how layers of mitigations combine to reduce risks.
Excellent take. I particularly liked the description of the two fringes: the anti-lockdown crowd and the preening, safety-obsessed, lockdown at any cost crowd. Both are problematic, and most of us fall somewhere in the middle. We realize that lockdowns are needed to a certain extent, but also know that they won't provide victory. Curiously, if we couldn't manufacture a vaccine, I wonder what we would do.
I don't know, Jen, every time I read something optimistic in the press, new cases spike the next day. Now I wish I hadn't read it.