Aside from the stupidity of the first half, is the last sentence to be taken to mean that everyone under 70 will be dragged forcibly out of their homes and exposed involuntarily? If not, how else are we to understand that only a narrow group will have the “option” of “quarantine”?
> Pass legislation to make Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin available over the counter like they are in many foreign countries.
That’s stupid. Why would we make things worse by implicitly endorsing ineffective treatments? We’ve actually come a long way in effective medical interventions for COVID; making those more readily available (though OTC isn’t the right route, even there) makes sense.
> But no, we get ignore all the proof and hide in your homes until everyone can be vaccinated.
Almost nowhere has a policy that could even hyperbolicly be described by any sane person as “hide in your homes”, most places are gradually (some radically, even recklessly) reopening (and many adopting the first part of your first recommendation.) Even the many of the most restrictive places have generally reopened or are on short timetable to, despite retaining mask mandates and distancing/capacity restrictions for many activities.
Oh, like Brazil does?! It's working so well over there, is it not.
If you don't have malaria, lupus, lice, worms or similar, those medications do NOTHING. It's a virus.
Vitamin D is effective if you are deficient. If you have normal levels that too does NOTHING.
Indeed it is a virus, and they are used for Malaria. If using the combination of Hydroxychloroquine, Zinc and Azythromicin early in disease progression actually works then... who cares? I mean really. It could work on placebo for all I care. People are dying, you think they will refuse a proven treatment that happens to be a anti-malarial versus an anti-viral?
Regarding people being deficient in Vitamin D, that's uh... literally everyone. I think the only people with normal levels are native tribes that still live outdoors. Check out any study of vitamin D in chronically ill people and see how many have normal levels. These are the same people most susceptible to dying from COVID. Isn't being Vitamin D deficient the most indicative metric of COVID morbidity?
> Isn't being Vitamin D deficient the most indicative metric of COVID morbidity
It is one metric. Depends on how deficient you are too.
We KNOW containment measures work (Ebola, SARS).
If you expose more people to a virus, you risk making the pandemic much worse. Or deadly. Viruses mutate. Every new person exposed is a potential laboratory.
Of course containment measures work -- for keeping 80 year olds (and few other people) alive for a little bit longer at the expense of everyone else.
It may be that the vaccines will be incapable of giving us herd immunity, but they may allow us to keep the R number below 1 with much less extreme social distancing and lockdown procedures.
Without the vaccines, the only way to get rid of this pandemic is through severe economy-damaging lockdowns and liberty-encroaching contact tracing and quarantining. If we can achieve the same thing with vaccines plus just having to wear a mask when near other people, then I would say that vaccination would still be a moral obligation, even though we haven't achieved herd immunity.