I blame the combination of how over-hyped the (real) issue of Y2K was combined with how successfully we handled it (partly because everyone was so worked up about it) leading to the (common issue for IT professionals) take away of “well nothing went wrong, why did we put all that effort into trying to stop something going wrong?” for no small part of why people weren’t as willing to try to stop/minimise Covid as they otherwise might have been (of course it was always going to be a harder sell as Y2K mostly required from the general public that they don’t have a tantrum about organisations paying professionals to fix the problem directly whereas Covid required the general public to follow the advice of the professionals in taking action in their own lives.)
That’s not how any of the COVID vaccines were reported to work. No such thing as total immunity.
The virus is deadly depending on what conditions are met (underlying risk factors, etc.). Not all of those conditions are obvious or well-studied, so it always seemed to me like a lottery who gets killed by the virus.
Furthermore, I don’t believe the article is fearmongering. As I said in a separate comment, it’s more like “hey, there might be a bit of an outbreak in some places this flu season, so keep some N95s on hand just in case numbers go up.” I HIGHLY doubt we would see another shutdown.
Chicken pox? Pretty much one and done. COVID? Falls off rapidly after 3 months, whether you catch it or get the vaccine
Plus, every mutation is a dice roll on how much existing immunity will apply. It could be exactly the same as the last strain, or the old immunity might not help at all
deleted by creator
Did you read the article?
deleted by creator
What? 7 million people died from COVID-19. How many more would it have been without all the safety measures?
https://covid19.who.int/
Bruh.
The curse of successful mitigation is skeptics will then say afterwards that ‘X was no big deal, look how few people died’
Don’t be one of those.
I blame the combination of how over-hyped the (real) issue of Y2K was combined with how successfully we handled it (partly because everyone was so worked up about it) leading to the (common issue for IT professionals) take away of “well nothing went wrong, why did we put all that effort into trying to stop something going wrong?” for no small part of why people weren’t as willing to try to stop/minimise Covid as they otherwise might have been (of course it was always going to be a harder sell as Y2K mostly required from the general public that they don’t have a tantrum about organisations paying professionals to fix the problem directly whereas Covid required the general public to follow the advice of the professionals in taking action in their own lives.)
Removed by mod
We all knew you had already drawn your conclusion that this was “fearmongering” before seeing any facts.
No one is going to logic you out of a position you didn’t use logic to get into in the first place.
That’s not how any of the COVID vaccines were reported to work. No such thing as total immunity.
The virus is deadly depending on what conditions are met (underlying risk factors, etc.). Not all of those conditions are obvious or well-studied, so it always seemed to me like a lottery who gets killed by the virus.
Furthermore, I don’t believe the article is fearmongering. As I said in a separate comment, it’s more like “hey, there might be a bit of an outbreak in some places this flu season, so keep some N95s on hand just in case numbers go up.” I HIGHLY doubt we would see another shutdown.
Because immunity varies by disease.
Chicken pox? Pretty much one and done. COVID? Falls off rapidly after 3 months, whether you catch it or get the vaccine
Plus, every mutation is a dice roll on how much existing immunity will apply. It could be exactly the same as the last strain, or the old immunity might not help at all