Tweet
This is a good piece. I found a free link to it. You have to do some gymnastics involving killing your ad-blocker to get to it but it's worth a read ...... until the conclusion where the author states the administration needs a better policy on testing and tracing. Duhhh.
What is worth thinking about though is the author's hypothesis that people like me are going to think that they can take more risks as time passes and they remain uninfected. But his endpoint of that behavior - the community will suffer from that (I suppose with increasing new case numbers) I believe is flawed.
To be clear, the editorial staff of Bloomberg isn't spewing the COVID negativity, augmenting it by spinning the data to fit the NYT's (among others) dire consequences narrative so, I'm willing to listen to what their contributing writers have to say. The guy's got the right idea and it resonates with me to the extent that I am becoming less concerned about the virus the longer I'm living a pretty much normal life given restraints on it without getting infected. The differences between my response to my experience and his predicted response to it is that I will continue to take the reasonable precautions that have worked for me and kept me uninfected while at the same time increasing my scrutiny of misinterpreted COVID data points and the bad conclusions being drawn from them.
Most of those bad conclusion involve mitigation measures that result in restrictions on social and economic activity. Most of the time, they have no basis in the facts and after due time, they are proven to have higher costs than public health benefit. So, yeah, I'm adapting to to the concept that in the US we need to figure out how to live with the virus without unnecessary restrictions while improving our ability to control its spread with better testing and tracing protocols. At this point I don't care if these protocols are developed and implemented at the federal, state or local level. It just needs to happen now rather than later. This isn't hard.
https://www.twincities.com/2020/10/0...-main-problem/
What is worth thinking about though is the author's hypothesis that people like me are going to think that they can take more risks as time passes and they remain uninfected. But his endpoint of that behavior - the community will suffer from that (I suppose with increasing new case numbers) I believe is flawed.
To be clear, the editorial staff of Bloomberg isn't spewing the COVID negativity, augmenting it by spinning the data to fit the NYT's (among others) dire consequences narrative so, I'm willing to listen to what their contributing writers have to say. The guy's got the right idea and it resonates with me to the extent that I am becoming less concerned about the virus the longer I'm living a pretty much normal life given restraints on it without getting infected. The differences between my response to my experience and his predicted response to it is that I will continue to take the reasonable precautions that have worked for me and kept me uninfected while at the same time increasing my scrutiny of misinterpreted COVID data points and the bad conclusions being drawn from them.
Most of those bad conclusion involve mitigation measures that result in restrictions on social and economic activity. Most of the time, they have no basis in the facts and after due time, they are proven to have higher costs than public health benefit. So, yeah, I'm adapting to to the concept that in the US we need to figure out how to live with the virus without unnecessary restrictions while improving our ability to control its spread with better testing and tracing protocols. At this point I don't care if these protocols are developed and implemented at the federal, state or local level. It just needs to happen now rather than later. This isn't hard.
https://www.twincities.com/2020/10/0...-main-problem/
Comment