News from Aotearoa/New Zealand and the Pacific Islands

Seems a bit weak and sidesteps the main problem with herd immunity: it's based on lies, and the people suffering the consequences are not supported. It's an economic strategy, one that aims to keep full employment and, most of all, make sure the rich don't lose any money from it. In fact COVID led to the biggest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich in history, so the rich really like it.

It would be one thing if the concept was "look, this will be bad, but having to weigh the pros and cons, the benefits of herd immunity outweigh the negative consequences, so we will pursue this strategy, but know that a lot of people will die, and a lot of people will be ill and become invalid, and they will be supported, at enormous costs that will be borne for at least a generation".

But this has never been the case, and we can't even know how bad it will be one way or another. Instead the public lie is that everything will be peachy, only people on their death bed, who are basically dead already, will suffer, and then elves and fairies will rise from the spring wells and lead everyone into a happy dance. Now the same "get infected people, get infected with viruses as many times as you can, they're good for you" is being applied to other pathogens, especially ones that don't cause massive acute illness, like measles and polio. This will happen, it's already baked in.

There are a lot of people who look smugly at how it went "well" with COVID, but if the upfront cost of 20-30M dead and 100M+ disabled, and all the costs associated with it, had been known, almost no one would have accepted it. It would have been considered monstrous. Even extremely low-ball estimates of 10K+ dead were dismissed as alarmist. But because it happened, in the distant past of just a few years ago, everything has been memory-holed, and because of that almost no one who needs help is getting what they need.

But of course since this is what happened, the next time will be the same. Governments will know that they don't even need to ask for forgiveness, because the only people who will demand it will be completely un-peopled, no one will listen anyway. Not even the medical professionals.

COVID was a gamble. Not everyone agrees that the price to pay was worth it, and for those who think it was, it's mainly because the main impacts they endured were the "lockdowns". But this is a psychopathic way of making such decisions, and it's completely dishonest. It dishonored the medical profession, which it turns will follow most monstrous orders that they are given, and completely de-fanged all the public health tools to deal with future pandemics. From this point on, there is only one politically viable strategy: gamble on the fact that it won't kill too many, and that the long-term impacts are mostly of the discriminated type that can be swept under the rug. Basically, the Fight Club calculation of whether the costs of doing something outweigh the costs of doing nothing, entirely ignoring the human impact.

If the next pandemic virus is one that can kill 30% of the population, this is how many people will die. It's almost guaranteed. And if it can in addition to that disable half the population, then so it will. Not making this clear is a terrible indictment of how such decisions are not made with consideration to life and health, but strictly about stock market performance and election cycles.

 

Herd immunity can be achieved under certain conditions, we’ve done so for polio, measles etc.

It’s correct that it was probably not possible for covid - and we knew it.

 

At the cost of schoolfriends of mine being paralysed and no doubt others who might have been schoolfriends of mine dying beforehand.

 

That’s horrible and tragic. To be clear, I was mostly thinking about herd immunity through effective vaccination. Herd immunity through infections is unethical in most instances.

 

Fair enough but I think the context was sampling allowing herd immunity from infection?
I didn't look at it in detail but it seemed a bit tone deaf on that issue.

Edit: I had a look at the quote which seemed be talking about herd immunity through infection. And it shouldn't be saying that some committee thought it was a bit dodgy. It should be saying that no sane person should ever have suggested this (which I realise has implications for my ex-boss Patrick Vallance).

 

Yes, I forgot the context so I also didn’t clarify enough in the first comment.

It does say it’s «scientifically problematic and unethical», but I agree that stronger words are warranted. It’s a clear breach of human rights, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it could be argued that it’s a crime against humanity (although you’d have to frame it as a systemic attack).

 

My reaction is biased by the fact that my life was destroyed by covid after my government let it loose and encouraged people to get infected to create immunity, and they have since denied the existence of LC and my suffering.

The scales of the harm that has been caused warrants stronger critique than being «scientifically problematic» and «unethical».

I know that it’s stronger language than what they usually use, but that doesn’t make it strong enough. I’m not willing to accept a watered down description because people don’t like criticising each other in official documents. It’s orwellian-esque doublespeak to not clearly express the atrocities that have been committed.