[PraetorianGourd]

Society has moved on. Independent of whether it is prudent that society has moved on, we need to recognize that it has. Does this mean that every individual needs to move on? Of course not. Individuals can, if they so choose, take any and all precautionary measures. I do not believe Mr. Lowe is advocating for societal intervention, however there will be a segment of the population who takes this (and Mr. Topol's linked article) and argues for a return to mandates, closures, remote learning, etc.

What I hope doesn't occur is a return to scare tactics and presenting the worst-case-scenario as the likely scenario. The amount of trust that the public health discipline burned through during the pandemic is massive. I am not arguing whether it is _right_ that this trust has vanished, just pointing out that it has.

[netsharc]

Somehow the governments of the world seem to have gotten the terrible task of needing to be the (overly) protective/strict parent(s) to their population, some of which are quietly heeding them, but some other are very whiny against them. And a proper government can't just say "Well fine, you do what you want, let's see where that gets you.". And of course they also had to be overly cautious rather being overly relaxed[1], and if some things were deemed in hindsight to have been unncessary, then the brats get to whine loudly about them afterwards.

But it's hindsight, and the governments don't have the luxury of having foresight. Sure some countries might have been lucky with less restrictions and "not so bad" results, but would you want to live in a country governed by luck? I guess that's also a matter of life philosophy (being safe vs living a life with its dangers and risks).

[1] Well, I guess that's where views differs, if we reduce it to just 2 sides, the one side would rather have less government involvement, and the other side would prefer more government involvement (in the form of rules and restrictions).

[SllX]

> if we reduce it to just 2 sides

You reduce anything to just two sides and you are needlessly polarizing and handicapping your own analytical abilities. If the subject matter is actually serious and not a passing fancy, this is useless.

[netsharc]

I have a broader study about the matter, but this comment box is too small to contain it.

/s