Given that COVID-19 has been in the human population for about 2 years and has killed millions already despite the modern scientific understanding we have and the restrictions we have put into place, why should it be treated the same as mild illnesses which so very rarely cause harm?
Good arguments, except IMO the evaluation of C19 where you aren't comparing it to "The other diseases in circulation have been around for a long time" based on their impact on naive populations. When these silly little disease that are no harm to us, that we don't worry about, hit biologically naive populations, the fatalities are far worse than C19*. If you normalise C19 mortality and impact to the population ages that we know those other diseases were presented to, ignoring the over 75 deaths because there weren't any over 75s 100s of years ago for those diseases to affect, the profile of C19 seems pretty tame for a new disease on a biologically naive population. Flu has been shown to be far more dangerous from mutations in populations that already have good resistance to it and don't have co-morbidities. Ergo, any pre-emptive compulsory vaccination programme to stop C19 mutation should also be applied to flu, no, as a matter of priority to prevent the next Spanish Flu event.
* Edit: that's actually very hard to determine, which diseases of which harmfulness to us, are the killers, but we see ~50% of Amazonian natives et al wiped out by diseases introduced from loggers, missionaries, etc., who were not themselves ill.
Given that COVID-19 has been in the human population for about 2 years and has killed millions already despite the modern scientific understanding we have and the restrictions we have put into place, why should it be treated the same as mild illnesses which so very rarely cause harm?
There's so much wrong in that summary. The scientific understanding was pretty laughable, with science constantly changing its mind. If we'd known at the beginning what we know now, things might be different. Furthermore, many of the efforts were pretty incompetent. Thirdly, dealing with anything on a global scale throws up numbers like 'millions'. If you want meaningful data, you need to process those values sensibly, such as %age excess deaths for a given age range and health profile, and then normalise that for other populations other diseases encountered to get a decent comparison - that is, how does C19 fair against other diseases with naive populations and a demographic profile that matches (so not obese or with co-morbidities that would have resulted in early death in those other populations). Fourthly, initial treatments were found to do more harm than good, with early intubation being detrimental. Doctors were surprised that patients with low blood O2 levels were actually not doing too badly and could recover.
In short, these simplified over-generalisations miss all the bits we don't really know yet and can't compare. Simply looking at a bigger number and concluding this disease is worse as a result isn't scientific
The virus 'circulates' mostly among the unvaccinated.
Not sure what you mean by that. The vaccinated are known to be able to get reinfected and spread the disease. Half hospitalisations are among the vaccinated. If everyone was vaccinated, C19 is still going to be going around.
Maybe, if everyone was vaccinated at the same time so everyone had active antibodies that stopped initial infection, the disease could be stopped, but that's logistically impossible. By the time you've vaccinated some people, other's ABs will be waning and they'll be open to infection. Because the disease is highly transmissible (going completely against initial scientific 'knowledge' from the 'experts' about this disease), it's going to keep going around, visiting people without active antibodies. The same as all the other diseases that are currently doing the rounds - my Polish friend had three days off two weeks ago from a cold caught from somewhere, and then the better part of a week off after that from a different disease caught from her daughter that's required antibiotics. Turns out our bodies only defend against infection well when there's a clear presence of said diseases. Antibodies serve a limited function in species survival against pathogens.
I'm sure there's some in a lab in wuhan.
In light of this incident, all known stocks of the smallpox virus were destroyed or transferred to one of two World Health Organization reference laboratories which had
BSL-4 facilities—the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the United States and the
State Research Center of Virology and Biotechnology VECTOR in
Koltsovo, Russia.
[2] Since 1984, these two labs have been the only ones authorized by the WHO to hold stocks of live smallpox virus.
I did not make any wild claim there. I was pretty open about all the things I don't know. ...I'm not pushing back on vaccines.
Yeah, I feel the discussion here isn't particularly open but largely aligned to a certain way of thinking and seeing things. I feel those of us offering a counterpoint are being looked down upon, as if in league with the antivaxxers etc. Trying to get people to acknowledge what they don't know, what none of us really knows, isn't proving particularly constructive or useful!
It's worth noting, as ever when looking at history, that we have precedent and good examples. eg. Smallpox vaccines were made compulsory, and had anti-vaccinators!
The point raised was the virus doesn't spread much among the vaccinated. The above is cited as disproof - case rates among the vaccinated can be higher, showing the vaccines don't stop you contracting the virus. Which is part of the counterargument to the larger hypothesis that (compulsory) vaccinations of everyone are the best way to prevent potential deadly mutations.