Based on people I've discussed this with their explanation is: The data doesn't support lockdowns and madates for the masses. Deaths are typically a select subset of the population. Hospitalizations much the same. Using a one size fit all solution - when surgical solutions are more appropriate -makes them suspect.

Please don't shoot this messenger. I'm just providing context that tends to be missed elsewhere.

p.s. fwiw, there were these in the past week or so:

https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-science-heal...

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20211122-could-mrna-make-...

Both of those certain raise a reasonable eyebrow.

Aside from ethical concerns around shutting a subset of the population out of society to benefit others, that presumes that a selective approach would be effective, and that it is feasible to segregate the vulnerable and non-vulnerable populations. Do you have any practical suggestions as to how that might be implemented? As a I believe that’s why it hasn’t been attempted.

Again, I'm just the messenger. But the gist I get is this: locking down select subsets (of high risk individuals) is doable simply because locking down everyone is doable.

But speaking for myself, the fact that early on there were such a ridiculous number of deaths in retirement homes (primarily in NY, NJ, PA and CA) never smelled right to me. We had data - openly mentioned in the media - about Italy and the elderly and yet the same thing happened here? It's been all down hill since then.

> locking down select subsets (of high risk individuals) is doable

We can’t convince an idiot minority to spend five minutes getting a shot. We’re supposed to trust them to confine themselves at home?

You don't understand the problem, do you? Nor do you understand you're part of that problem.

It's - by definition - is a pandemic of everybody. Anyone who suggests otherwise is suspect. Those ppl fuel the discontent. The fact that they're allowed to furthers the divide.

The phrase that comes to mind is: "Divided we fall." An absolute truth if there ever was one.

It's shutting out a tiny elderly subset for the benefit of all vs shutting down all for the benefit of a tiny elderly subset. I'm not saying one is better than the other, but your ethical concern should be 2 sided.

What is the proposed method of actually isolating the most vulnerable parts of society? I don't see how you do it in any meaningful way (At the very most vulnerable end, they are dependent on lots of people that are less vulnerable...).

To that point, my grandma's retirement home was as well locked down as possible.

But you know who didn't take it seriously? The staff who worked there and brought COVID in, which ended up killing her.

There's no way of isolating them without isolating their staff, their families, everyone they interact with. With a virus as contagious as COVID, there doesn't appear to be a way to target portions of the population effectively.

Indeed, and that's a retirement home which is really the easy case. I don't see how an elderly person that lives with their younger family members is supposed to be isolated.

The staff could work like oil rig workers - in month-long shifts. Get quarantined for a week on the way in, do your shift, go home to your family. Not pleasant, but doable and a lot simpler than placing everyone's life on hold.

An improvement in testing (accuracy + turnaround time + cost) would also help significantly. But there's been little talk in investing in such a tool. That strikes me as a red flag. Instead, we're betting on the jab, and apparently that's not working out well. At all.

> And it's not like the local government is gaining anything from slowing down the local economy and annoying its citizens

It’s a lot simpler than that. Weilding political power is psychologically addictive, perhaps even more so than recreational drugs. Like drugs, the user will always want to come back for another hit, and thus politicians will use every excuse and rationalization to continue to use emergency powers.