For 10 years, Americans have had access to flu shots that protect against four strains of the virus: two A strains and two B strains. Starting this fall, however, all the flu shots distributed in the United States will contain only three strains, and the change happened in part because of Covid-19.
I jumped there because masks are fine, but the only thing that really keeps infectious diseases at bay is social distancing. Everything else like vaccines, masks and proper hygiene only limits the risks to some degree. Keeping away from other humans is the only thing guaranteed to work. That’s why I assume people mean this when they talk about measures to fight diseases.
I think the key is compromize and risk reduction. Sick people should stay home, mask if they need to go out, & be aware of what signs of infection are.
Its true social distancing is the only “100% effective” way to not get sick. But its kind of like abstinence-- most people are not going to do the “100% safe” thing, but they will take measures to make bad outcomes less likely. Which the cdc recognizes and has adjusted covid reccomendations to reflect what is most benificial for people as a whole (stay home if sick, but no need to isolate yourself from everyone).
Perfection is the enemy of the good and all that jazz.
There needs to be more pushback on the idea that “if we only save one life, it’s worth it”. Everything has tradeoffs. Domestic violence went up because of lockdowns. So did a lot of other social ills.
Was it worth that cost? Yes. Covid at the time was just that bad, and because we didn’t know enough about its infection factors, there were reasonable models that showed it could have been much, much worse than it was. However, that’s a tradeoff argument. Lockdowns did more good than harm. We shouldn’t pretend they did zero harm, and that idea that “if we only save one life” feeds into that.
You’re from a German instance if I understand Lemmy right (and odds are good I don’t), and if that’s the case perhaps you’re not aware that the message above was probably for an American audience because we had a lot of really, really ignorant conservatives under the Republican party banner who completely ignored the science and medical advice of experts, continued to socialize, continued to be anti-vaxx, anti-mask, and spread dangerous unfounded conspiracy theories to the detriment of millions. I’m sure Germany and other nations had a similar issue albeit to a lesser extend from what I understand.
As the original user said, if more people just heeded the vast consensus of experts in this field on this issue, we’d all be much better off. Instead, they’d rather listen to some right-wing media pundit tell them there is some grand conspiracy because it makes them feel better about themselves or something…
Help me follow your logic when you immediately bring up “social distancing,” from the following message you replied to:
…? Because this feels like a straw-man. The user you replied to said nothing about social distancing. Seemed to be a more generalized comment to me.
I jumped there because masks are fine, but the only thing that really keeps infectious diseases at bay is social distancing. Everything else like vaccines, masks and proper hygiene only limits the risks to some degree. Keeping away from other humans is the only thing guaranteed to work. That’s why I assume people mean this when they talk about measures to fight diseases.
I think the key is compromize and risk reduction. Sick people should stay home, mask if they need to go out, & be aware of what signs of infection are.
Its true social distancing is the only “100% effective” way to not get sick. But its kind of like abstinence-- most people are not going to do the “100% safe” thing, but they will take measures to make bad outcomes less likely. Which the cdc recognizes and has adjusted covid reccomendations to reflect what is most benificial for people as a whole (stay home if sick, but no need to isolate yourself from everyone).
Perfection is the enemy of the good and all that jazz.
There needs to be more pushback on the idea that “if we only save one life, it’s worth it”. Everything has tradeoffs. Domestic violence went up because of lockdowns. So did a lot of other social ills.
Was it worth that cost? Yes. Covid at the time was just that bad, and because we didn’t know enough about its infection factors, there were reasonable models that showed it could have been much, much worse than it was. However, that’s a tradeoff argument. Lockdowns did more good than harm. We shouldn’t pretend they did zero harm, and that idea that “if we only save one life” feeds into that.
You’re from a German instance if I understand Lemmy right (and odds are good I don’t), and if that’s the case perhaps you’re not aware that the message above was probably for an American audience because we had a lot of really, really ignorant conservatives under the Republican party banner who completely ignored the science and medical advice of experts, continued to socialize, continued to be anti-vaxx, anti-mask, and spread dangerous unfounded conspiracy theories to the detriment of millions. I’m sure Germany and other nations had a similar issue albeit to a lesser extend from what I understand.
As the original user said, if more people just heeded the vast consensus of experts in this field on this issue, we’d all be much better off. Instead, they’d rather listen to some right-wing media pundit tell them there is some grand conspiracy because it makes them feel better about themselves or something…