Given that the US is sitting at a vaccination rate of around 60% (i.e., around 10% lower than the lowest estimate for "some degree of herd immunity"), I don't think you can fairly blame this on strategy (other than a general failure of public education, but that's a doozy of a failure.)

One way or another, the restrictions are going to eventually end. But they could have ended sooner, with fewer deaths and fewer severely ill, had more people decided to act affirmatively and with their civic duty in mind.

Lately a majority of the deaths have been unvaccinated. But that was their choice not to be vaccinated. There is no "civic duty" to be vaccinated (or masked) the vaccine didn't prevent transmission, it really only lowers your chance at hospitalization and death. And cloth masks don't do much. And while other masks work the mask mandates don't. Forcing people to be vaccinated isn't the way to get more people vaccinated. A higher vaccination rate would not have "ended" this sooner.

> A higher vaccination rate would not have "ended" this sooner.

Because this never ends. COVID has killed, what, a few snow leopards?

I mean, this thing is forever. Life is way to short to spend the rest of it in fret of Covid. But that isn’t my call that make, nor is it yours or the governments. We have multiple vaccines, treatments, etc. COVID is here forever. It’s no longer anybody but each individual to decide how to deal with that.

Unclear this is true. There’s no herd immunity for any other coronavirus. Antibodies wane quicker than for other diseases.

We have a SARS virus that we hope is actually just a common cold. That’s the plan. Hope and see.

Even highly vaccinated European societies are seeing a sharp rise in cases now that winter is here. Even Portugal, which vaccinated basically 100% of adults, has seem cases triple in a month.

They seem to be doing alright, but antibodies are currently fresh from recent vaccines. We’ll see how this goes long run.

But there’s no empirical support from any society, anywhere, that we could be done. Before any place can claim victory they have to make it through their traditional flu season.

You can do a year on year comparison to compare deaths. Last year, Portugal had the same number of cases with a similar acceleration on October 21st. This year the 7 day death average is 11. Last year it was 15. So about a 33% improvement. Good, but what happens if/when cases go higher? Portugal already vaccinated everyone.

> But there’s no empirical support from any society, anywhere, that we could be done. Before any place can claim victory they have to make it through their traditional flu season.

Certainly. I'm not claiming victory yet, and I don't think we should. But all current evidence points to vaccines being both short-term effective against infection and long-term effective against severe illness, which are the two metrics we (should) all care about.

> You can do a year on year comparison to compare deaths. Last year, Portugal had the same number of cases with a similar acceleration on October 21st. This year the 7 day death average is 11.

Do you have a link for that? I'm curious whether Portugal breaks it down by vaccination status; the numbers I've seen from Singapore show mortality rates around tenfold for the unvaccinated. It's not inconceivable that deaths there are disproportionately spread among pockets of unvaccinated individuals, as we've seen elsewhere.

Just looking at the stats in Google, which are sourced from our world in data.

There is indeed a good relative protection compared to the unvaccinated. However, Delta seems to be worse in the absolute by about 2x. At least for intensive care, not sure anyone studied death.

The other thing is that severe disease protection did decline as well in Israel. Pre booster they fell to 80%, instead of the previou 95-98%.

This doesn’t sound like much, but it amounts to only 5x relative protection, vs earlier 20-50x relative protection.

And since Delta is 2x worse in absolute for severe disease, you get only a 2.5x absolute reduction in severe disease for the same level of cases. Then, if cases go up by 2.5x the actual number of severe disease instances are equal.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/israels-severe-covid-cases-cou...

>You can do a year on year comparison to compare deaths. Last year, Portugal had the same number of cases with a similar acceleration on October 21st. This year the 7 day death average is 11. Last year it was 15. So about a 33% improvement. Good, but what happens if/when cases go higher? Portugal already vaccinated everyone.

Why did you pick Oct 21st for a comparison? Why not the latest data? Say Nov 21st. The deaths are far lower.

Picking two data points like that is not meaningful.

This relationship is pretty similar across different countries. Pick the current point, pick a point with a similar curve, you’ll see differences are at most 2-3x better, often much less so. Much less of an improvement than the quote 20-fold protection against severe disease (95% efficacy)

Those saying “live with it” argue for a removal of NPIs leading to even higher caseloads. If improvement per case is only 2-3x at most then if you go 2-3x past prior peaks the absolute problem is as bad.

I checked the Uk and got 2-3x depending on metric (icu 2x better, hospital and death, 3x)

Denmark is .5-2x better on these metrics from prior peak.

Germany 3x better on deaths (checking prior case peak, December 21st 2020)

Can you find a country which does not have this pattern, where they are actually 10-20x better for a given caseload?

If not, I posit the pattern holds and that this method has some use in predicting future results at a given caseload in a country at European average levels of vaccination, without boosters.

Last year Delta didn't exist. If you want to see efficacy of vaccination, compare incidence among vaccinated and non-vaccinated (which will be about 4x).

Yeah but my point is that people point to relative efficacy when it is absolute reduction which matters. Delta being 2x worse means you need a stronger relative protection.

What do you mean by 4x: relative severe disease protection? That would be 75% efficacy, a marked drop from 95% efficacy (20x protection). I think most of the west still has higher severe disease efficacy than that, though Israel fell as low as 80% pre booster.

Err. What country has reached herd immunity? Even 99% vaccination doesn't seem to make much difference.

Not saying you're wrong, but who is at 99% vaccinated?

My bad, Singapore is at 91% vaccination rate [1]. Unfortunately, they are seeing a surge of cases right now[2]. I wish herd immunity was true but it doesn't seem to be working.

[1]: https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations

[2]: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/singapore/

As mentioned below, Gibraltar has a >99% double-vax rate and recently decided to cancel its Christmas celebrations given its current surge in cases. [1]

I'm not really sure what to make of this, though the country's so tiny (population of 33k), I wouldn't jump to any major conclusions.

[1] https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/christmas-cancelled-gi...

Hello! I read in an old post that you worked for Quanta. My name is Humberto Mockel, I´m form Bahia Blanca, Argentina. I´m a volunteer for a retro computers museum in my city. Recently we got some equipment from a local TV channel. One of them is a Quanta "Quantafont" character generator. I´m looking for software and documentation for it, as there´s nothing online. Please contact me at [email protected] if you have any info!! Thanks in advance

Yes, I did work for Quanta, but no, I don't have any software or documentation for a Quantafont. My best advice would be to contact Utah Scientific, at 4750 Wiley Post Way, Suite 200, Salt Lake City, UT 84116 USA. They may have inherited the corporate remains of the Quantafont product line, or they may know who did.

Thank you so much! Will do so. Any other info that you may remember later, please don't hesitate to contact me.

Good luck Humberto! Retro computing museums are wonderfully fascinating places and are only possible because of folks like you. Your work is appreciated!

Gibraltar

> there is no clear success in any strategy whatsoever.

No clear success from a covid mitigation perspective, but lots of huge wins in gaining power and growing bureaucracy. From the perspective of an advocate that wants a way to push their agenda forward, or a director that wants to get more budget and headcount for their group, covid had been a huge boon. There have been massive losers as well, in politics, business, and personal freedom, but if you look at how some have benefitted it's clear why there are lots of entrenched interests that don't want us to move on.

With COVID rife, and too few people vaccinated, the outcome of "people also need to move on, and live freely" is spread, mutation, infection, and many many deaths - both from COVID directly, and also from people with other conditions who can't get optimal treatment due to hospitals and especially ICUs being (literally) full of COVID sufferers.

That's what restrictions and lockdowns are largely driven by: preventing disasters within the hospital system.

So... how do you weigh up loss of human life on a massive scale, against "living freely"?

> So... how do you weigh up loss of human life on a massive scale, against "living freely"?

You know that the vaccine has been available for, like, nine months, right? Anyone who wanted to get it got it months ago, and has been rather safe. ICUs being full points to a problem with the medical system (and, at least in America, the medical system is well known to be broken), and if you don't want to fix that, there's a really easy political fix (which is to de-prioritize unvaccinated COVID patients, given that - again - there's a vaccine available, so if you willingly chose not to get it, then your medical care can wait until those who have unpreventable issues are helped).

We're well past the point where you can make the argument that these restrictions are for the greater good, because we've been in a state where one's health is almost entirely one's personal responsibility (you either take the vaccine and you're safe, or you don't and you're not) for months now.

If other people want to remain unvaccinated and that leads to them dying ("loss of human life on a massive scale"), they can do that.

> there's a really easy political fix (which is to de-prioritize unvaccinated COVID patients)

You've hit an important central issue: that Governments (and/or HC systems) aren't ready to take this step. As such, I suspect it might be a logically easy concept, but as a political step, maybe not so much. :)

> there's a really easy political fix (which is to de-prioritize unvaccinated COVID patients, given that - again - there's a vaccine available, so if you willingly chose not to get it, then your medical care can wait until those who have unpreventable issues are helped).

I mean, in the absence of a few thousand years worth of medical ethics, sure, that's an obvious step.

But it's very much not how things are done. The only place where anything even vaguely like this happens is with organ transplants. In general, hospital triage is based on need; if the unvaccinated person with covid is sicker than the blameless road traffic accident victim, and there's one ICU bed, well, it doesn't matter that they brought it on themselves; the covid patient gets it, and good luck to the road traffic accident victim.

This isn't _just_ a political issue (though it would also be a very difficult political issue); it is how the whole institution works.

Triage based on vaccination status would be a very extreme move, much more so than mandatory vaccinations to work or than unvaccinated-only lockdowns.

> and if you don't want to fix that, there's a really easy political fix (which is to de-prioritize unvaccinated COVID patients, given that - again - there's a vaccine available, so if you willingly chose not to get it, then your medical care can wait until those who have unpreventable issues are helped).

It's political suicide to do so. Takes courage to do the right thing.

That is the tricky bit isn't it. In other aspects of life we clearly accept a certain amount of death and injury risk so as to allow things to happen.

Think cars, motorbikes, planes etc. They do all result in events where people die. But we keep them because they provide a lot of utility to many many people.

My view: Lockdowns absolutely help avoid disasters. But they are a temporary measure.

Lockdown while people get vaxxed, procedures updated and social adoption of masks can occur and any other handy measure. Then the lockdowns have to be eased to shift the risk mitigation load onto these other measures.

This is a complicated task. Every country/zone will have different trade offs. Everyone will have an opinion backed by an example from somewhere else.

I think the best we can do is:

- avoid disaster

- give people a fair and equitable chance to save themselves via vaccination

- implement sensible measures where possible/socially acceptable

- open up slowly, adjust as neccessary

- sadly, let the deliberately, knowingly unvaccinated fall as they may. While avoiding disaster...

> procedures updated and social adoption of masks can occur and any other handy measure

So forced masks forever?

You jumped on that particular point huh? My comment was primarily about lockdowns. Lockdowns AND masks are but tools for preventing COVID.

Maybe you lockdown supertight until leadership decisions figured out, communicated and logistically sorted out. One of those decisions may be that some lockdown restrictions can be eased if people wear masks. IE relax one mitigation measure by using another.

But that's up to each society to decide for themselves.

My own opinion, once everyone is vaccinated as best as they will, ease lockdowns and mask usage in stages so that vaccines can be tested in real world conditions for effectiveness AND hospitalisation rates are kept under control.

In an ideal future with covid, we'd have perfect vaccines, zero lockdown and zero masks. In reality, I think we can get pretty close but with vaccine booster shots instead.

Got Covid, got the vaccine, will get the fucking "boosters", will wear mask and be careful.

Now fuck off with any other restrictions, that's where I think the line is.

That’s great for you, now get the other 40% of the country on board and we can “fuck off with any other restrictions”.

Your anger should be directed at the unvaxxed because that’s what’s driving policy right now.

Honestly it would be much more productive to reject people who want to tell others how to live, than try and whip ourselves into a frenzy over some external enemy like you are advocating. This is not only sociopathic - basically dehumanizing others, it never ends well, even for those who think they're on the "right" side now, and to the point of the discussion, doesn't actually solve anything except fulfill people's worse base desires to project their fear onto an enemy.

In modern society there are implicit and explicit ways by which we force each other to live, whether that’s through laws or social norms. This isn’t any different.

And the liberally minded of us have been fighting against a world where we tell people how to live for decades. We don't want to live in that world. You want to give that world a fresh breath of life out of fear?

You're right it isn't any different, which is why we should all oppose it. Just be a use things are a certain way doesn't mean it is the right way.

There simply is no way to run humanity at-large without these laws and norms. What's the alternative? Anarchy? At what point are laws "good enough" yet we still have a functioning society?

It's *so easy* to say "we don't want to be told what to do" but then expect all the comforts of modern society. It's such a nieve take.

You know what's a pretty naive take? Handwaving social control as necessary to maintain "the comforts of modern society." How exactly does one follow from another? What does that statement even mean?

The alternative... A world where the only things that are illegal are infringements on someone else's rights. Why does it have to be anarchy or social conformity and control? It's not a dichotomy. Literally every time some group opposed some social control the bellyachers came out with the anarchy argument. No more segregation, let the women vote, let gay people do what they want, let people smoke weed... Good enough is simple, really simple: let everyone do whatever they want except infringe on the rights of others. What "comforts of modern society" do we lose by simplifying our rule set down to that?

> You know what's a pretty naive take? Handwaving social control as necessary to maintain "the comforts of modern society." How exactly does one follow from another? What does that statement even mean?

It means you don't shit on your neighbour's porch.

It means you don't park in a handicap space, knock the old biddy who wanted it out of her wheelchair after she laboriously has got out of her car further away from the shop, and give her the finger as you walk away laughing.

It means you don't spit your boss in the face; don't cheat on your taxes, your creditors, or your wife; don't drive drunk or fuck toddlers in the arse.

It means all that, and a million other things like it.

Are you OK with that, or is any of the above something that you insist on your "right" to indulge in?

If not, then what the fuck is different about your "right" not to care whether you're coughing death-in-agony in the face of everyone you meet, that you must insist on that?!?

I'm one of those people that has not been vaccinated and chooses not to and will not. You don't need to get me on board, you're vaccinated. Leave me to the consequences of my decision. If I'm going to die, let me die.

And fuck off with the restrictions.

The issue is your decisions not only affect YOU. That's the entire point. If you're spreading COVID, it affects all of us.

If your actions only affected you, nobody would care at all.

So that argument is dead, it has been definitively for a few months now, and the proof is in the article we are discussing in this thread. Vaccination is not preventing transmission. it only lowers the likelihood of severe illness, apparently.

So yes, my actions do only affect me, and potentially those who have chosen to take the same risk as me. Those who are vaccinated have the level of protection they signed up for, I have the level of protection I signed up for.

And that severe illness is what is clogging up the healthcare system, putting a strain on those who do not have COVID and seek treatment. Again, still affecting everyone else.

Out of (genuine) interest, would you be willing to sign a document denying yourself hospital care in the event you contracted COVID and your condition required hospitalisation?

Sure.

But then go out into the wilderness and die under some fucking tree, so you don't take a bed in the ICU from some poor fucker who needs it not because of their own stupidity.

>now get the other 40% of the country on board

Why does that have to be the standard? Why can't you accept alternatives? Perhaps covid antibodies from contracting the virus instead of vaccine? Or a negative covid test? Or masks? Or germicidal light to clean air? Or restricted public involvement?

Why must we follow those SPECIFIC standards before we can be free?

No. The unvaxxed aren't driving policy. I live in a county with an almost 90% vaccination rate, and we are one of the few places with a vaccine passport.

I disagree that there was no clear success. Look at New Zealand. They took it seriously and took it seriously early. Their cases dropped to near nothing and held that way until September of 2021.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/new-zealan...

I would argue that most of these countries and US counties being talked about in this article were deeply divided from the start, and never had great adoption of mitigation efforts due to politicization of the issue.

Had we all acted like New Zealand, actually having unified messaging and adoption of efforts, maybe we could have cleared this up early on and wouldn't be fighting all these variants now.

"Accidents still happen and people die despite traffic lights, stop signs, some wearing seatbelts and having airbags installed, everyone needs to move on and ignore all road safety rules and laws"

So… you think mask mandates should be permanent?

If we discovered that the safety rules add laws don't help, we usually abolish them. But they do help. Mask and vaccine mandates don't really help.

They definitely help.

I think part of the problem is that things that work get discontinued... "Oh, we're 70% vaxxed and positive rate is under X%..we don't need to mask anymore.."

Where I live dropped mask mandate only to bring it back in a few months with a strict vaccine mandate.

...while where I live there never was any mask mandate, nor is there a vaccination mandate. Still most people in vulnerable groups have been vaccinated and every now and then you see someone with a mask although they are the exception rather than the rule. We also currently have the lowest SARS2 infection and mortality rate in Europe with no upward trend - it is actually still going down [1].

Meanwhile in Germany questions have been asked in the Thüringer Landtag (parliament of the state Thüringen) [2] about an oddity in the relationship between excess mortality and vaccination status of states (Bundesländer) - the higher the vaccination rate, the higher the excess mortality [3,4 (both in German)]. This should of course be the other way around, it is after all against severe disease and death that the vaccines are meant to protect.

[1] https://c19.se/en

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKVOqYUAHTo

[3] https://www.utebergner.de/der-wert-eines-menschen-haengt-nic... (in German)

[4] https://www.utebergner.de/cms/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/%C3... (in German)

I seriously can't fathom at all how anyone could be in favor of lockdowns still.

Do they not do their job ( temporarily limiting the spread of the virus)? There are tradeoffs, sure, but they are very effective and sometimes necessary (e.g. you have exponential growth in cases and hospitalisations, and predict that soon ICUs will be full - do you do nothing or do you lockdown?)

It's working in China, one of the only countries that has actual success with their COVID policy.

You still trust what the Chinese Government says?

Name one person who died from Covid in China in 2021. You can't.

I can't name one person who died from Covid in Azerbaijan, either, but that doesn't mean there weren't any.

We should figure out what Sub-Saharan Africa is doing right and then emulate that, because they've been by far the least affected, despite a 6% vaccination rate. More on that here[1].

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29278184

> and then emulate that

What they're doing 'right', in general, is not having a lot of old people. It would be rather difficult for most developed countries to emulate _that_.

Not for long with the rate things are going with covid.

Morbid jokes aside, what I see here is an indicator that vulnerable people need to be protected (if they want), and the rest of the young healthy population needs to go on with life, and probably spend a little more time outside.

Keeping all unvaccinated elderly people under house arrest forever probably wouldn't fly. And the "if they want" thing doesn't work; they, obviously, do _not_ want, and would go out, get infected, and overload the ICUs.

Ultimately it all comes back to the hospitals; if they're overloaded then suddenly things get a _lot_ worse, and people start dying of preventable non-covid things.

Well, it wouldn't be forever.

Yes, I enjoy morbid jokes.

Preventing the young who probably won't wind up in hospitals from doing whatever they want doesn't solve the problem of vulnerable people not obeying lockdowns and winding up in an ICU. And it doesn't seem to affect the transmission rate if 2 years of data are telling us anything useful. The vulnerable who choose not to protect themselves are going to wind up in an ICU whether the young healthy people are living their lives or not. So what's the solution then?

They are young and spend a lot of time outside.

South Korea certainly seems like a success, with a per capita death rate about 3% of what the US saw. In fact contrary to your point, there is a very wide spread in covid impact from nation to nation. Here's a graph of all nations with 10M+ populations (scaled to eliminate Peru, which is a significant outlier that makes the graph hard to read):

https://91-divoc.com/pages/covid-visualization/?chart=countr...

And while there's lots of confounding issues here, like developing nations or autocracies with underreported or suspect data, it's pretty clear that some countries are doing a ton better than others. And it certainly looks to my eyes that among developed democracies, the nations with stronger popular adherence to mitigation strategies (in particular vaccination rates, but distancing and mask-wearing too) are the ones who are winning.

(And needless to say, the US is pretty much at the bottom of the list of industrial democracies.)

Seems like China's policy and Taiwan's policy are the only nations that have clear success. And it's the zero tolerance of COVID policy. One that many of us have been calling for near 2 years now.

there you go, thinking as an individual -- a voice like a poet. Decisions on governance are made from the point of view of administration .. that is, what are the financial costs, how much attention is on the subject, things like that. The monetary costs to insurers combined with Doctor's Orders (literally) are at stake. Individual people, their work places, social lives, their free will, their own affairs, are counted for naught it seems.

How would you balance harm caused to other individuals?

If someone was walking around a mall with Ebola, I'd assume you'd be comfortable with them being restrained and placed in quarantine?

Everyone that contracts COVID and is seriously harmed (or dies) contracted it from someone else - and through different measures, that transmission and death was preventable. And yet, because in the majority of cases, COVID isn't seriously harmful or fatal, it's okay to be part of its transmission to others?

Yes. You've answered your own question, unwittingly, by comparing covid with Ebola and pointing out that in the (vast) majority of cases it is not harmful. The answer is yes. People breathe air. People spend time around each other. These mostly mild yet sometimes deadly illnesses will be transmitted.

>no clear success in any strategy whatsoever

What is your measure of success? I think for most governments it is preventing hospitals from being overrun and depleted of nurses and doctors through infection. Also allowing time to get the population vaccinated and hence protected. Can't speak for the USA but in Australia we are nearing 95% double vaccinated, the measures to control the virus are broadly supported by just about everyone in spite of what you might hear.

And is it working?

It doesn't matter. People have convinced themselves these measures must work or "the experts" wouldn't have recommended doing them. The reality is they are participating in a giant uncontrolled experiment. There is probably a reason no society ever attempted to do this in the past (and probably will never do it again in the future). It doesn't work, and if it did, the benefits are so minute that they don't outweigh the immense societal costs.

The very fact that people can legitimately question the efficiency of lockdowns means they aren't worth it. For lockdowns to be worth the cost their effect should be so apparent and dramatic that any reasonable person looking at the data would see it was worth it. If you need PhD level math to discern the difference between your control and test groups.... it means even if lockdowns work they aren't worth the cost.

My question was a response to "what's your measure of success?" My measure of success is not how many people are vaccinated, how hard it is to travel, or any of the stuff I was responding to. I want to know if it works.

>How many high school graduations, proms, death bed visitations, dance recitals, wedding receptions, music concerts, games and sporting events have been ruined by these awful and ineffective government responses?

I would think that not having a high school graduation / prom /recital /wedding etc to be a lot less ruinous than having a close relative die from one of these?

I agree with you: life is too short. Personally I would hate for it to be cut even shorter because all the hospital beds are taken up by people who contracted an avoidable, extremely infectious disease.

https://people.com/health/college-student-dies-from-covid-af...

https://www.newsweek.com/bride-planning-funeral-instead-wedd...

Your argument is an old and tired one. Maybe we should all be on mandatory medically supervised diet and exercise regimens, not allowed to drive, not allowed any alcohol or caffeine or other drugs. If your dream is to optimize for longevity over all else, you can do that, at home. For many people, living life is actually important, not just living long. You have no right to tell them how to behave, or to rob them of life moments because of your personal criteria you're trying to optimize for.

You argue diametrically and it isn’t any better. There is room for civic duty and living life, which should be a stark and valuable lesson to all ages.

My parents raised me with the mantra “life isn’t fair” and while trite, it’s even truer today than it was all those years ago.

There is room for civic duty, sure. What there isn't room for though in my mind is people thinking they can dictate intimate aspects of my life to me in the name of civic duty.

Thank you for giving the reduction to absurdity, for the above line of argument.

His point is that people should be doing their own risk management. If you want to go on the road even though there are other cars around you, that's your choice to make.

> I would think that not having a high school graduation / prom /recital /wedding etc to be a lot less ruinous than having a close relative die from one of these?

The vaccine has been available for anyone who wants to get it for the better part of a year now, boosters have been released, and it's effective at preventing both transmission and severe cases (to include death).

If your relative is vaccinated, the odds of them getting severely sick from an unvaccinated person are incredibly small, and as such, various gathering restrictions are not only ineffective, but straight-up immoral.

(if your relatives aren't vaccinated, then they've made a choice to increase their risk exposure, and that's on them - given the effectiveness of the vaccine, it's pretty clear that safety is a personal choice, not something that other people impose on you - which is reinforced by both of the links you posted, wherein unvaccinated people died from the virus, not vaccinated ones)

You realize that means we have to cancel all high school graduations / proms /recitals /weddings etc forever, right?

I'd be ok with that.

Would you be OK with doing that for just yourself, or forcing something you're OK with on others who are not? Because if it is the latter (which seems all too common these days), you're an authoritarian.

I wouldn't be the one doing it!

People will call you an innumerate drama queen but I definitely sympathize with your emotions. Nobody should die, especially for what’s almost certainly the result of some Chinese lab screw up. Don’t take the downvotes to heart.

This is and was always about power. The idea they care about the health of the less than 1% of people who die is laughable. They unleashed a disease on the world, seized further power and mocked you the whole time and everyone let it happen. We slaves deserve our condition.