Originally Posted by
jtelander
If I may ask, why do you believe he is being too pessimistic?
When I saw Osterholm last, he was saying that there would be far worst times ahead. His reasoning was exclusively because of the unknowns around the variants on COVID-19 -- now and future. He was pessimistic two months ago -- and correctly so -- and his reasons were "winter" and "family gatherings." He was right then. I think he is wrong now.
The vaccines are roaring ahead and will be effective in protecting individuals from infection and, even more importantly, reducing the number of infections dramatically. In terms of the variants, the existing vaccines will have some level of effectiveness and the vaccine suppliers will engineer new vaccines, or boosters, against the variants. I am rather hopeful.
The problem I have with unnecessary or inaccurate "gloom and doom" is that it feeds the view that nothing can be done -- so, why try?
I have a similar view with respect to the stated opinions that, even if you have received both injections (which I have), you will have to take exactly the same precautions and experience the same degree of isolation as before. I'm a social scientist, not a medical doctor or expert, but that is just d-u-m-b. If one is one-twentieth as likely to get an infection and any infection is almost certain to be mild, then the directions on individual conduct can't be "no change." And, again, you are discouraging people from getting the vaccines, which is the most powerful public health set of actions, because "why bother?"
Sage Grouse
---------------------------------------
'When I got on the bus for my first road game at Duke, I saw that every player was carrying textbooks or laptops. I coached in the SEC for 25 years, and I had never seen that before, not even once.' - David Cutcliffe to Duke alumni in Washington, DC, June 2013