[mrhands69]

> Assuming the worst-case scenario until proven otherwise doesn't work like that. You have to look at the entire range of uncertainty, and choose the worst-case scenario for each question.

It seems to me the worst case scenario is always applied when looking at things like natural immunity from prior infection, long covid, etc

If you model Sars-Cov-2 after Sars-Cov-1 or MERS then you would be lead to believe natural immunity lasts around 5+ years.

Where is worst case scenario not applied? Anything to do with vaccines. We're not even allowed to question it.

We are extremely conservative on one side of the coin, but not the other. Why?

[outworlder]

We have to err on the side of saving lives, not speculation. Over 2 billion humans have been vaccinated so far, and rising.

What's the worst case scenario here?

[aristophenes]

That by not focusing on vaccinating only the most vulnerable, we are just selecting for strains that the vaccines are not effective against.

[wizzwizz4]

And selection is useless if the “gene pool” is small enough that the selection pressure just eradicates the disease entirely. If we get the R number to something like ⅒ and hold it there for a few months? Disease eradicated, job done, everybody goes home.

[mrhands69]

Because lockdowns are detrimental to society (mental health, division, etc). Why can't we take a level headed approach. It seems like our approaches don't take into any consideration past experiences with similar viruses, or leverage data. We have a lot more data this time around.