No getting 'back to normal,' experts say. The sooner we accept that, the better
cnn.com
cnn.com
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.
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.
There are no facts I'm aware of the back this up. Existence of a comorbidity is not a severe illness.
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”.
https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/how-to-make-better-decis...
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.
"Suprisingly non-trite article".... Wtf are you talking baout? Never going back to normal? Maybe not in the minds of the brainwashed