The basic problem with these studies is that they assume no unintended consequences. Most obviously, no bad reactions to the vaccine. But also, no bad reactions to forced isolation.
I’m going to refer to what I’ll call Sowell’s Law, that there are no easy answers, only trade-offs. (Actually, Gary Becker is the originator of this law, but we have another law in economics, named Stigler’s law, that no law in economics is named after its originator.)
I don’t 100 percent agree with Sowell on everything. Just 99 percent of time.
Yes, there are some easy answers, but these are rare. And the idea that do-gooders are always coming with easy answers is foolish and even dangerous. Whenever somebody says “Why can’t we ...,” as though there is no cost, they’re just revealing themselves to be fools.
I’ll give an example, for a time, the stupid reason given for any proposed new program was, if we could put a man on the moon, we can come up it a cure for Alzheimer’s disease. The proper response is that if we didn’t spend all the money we spent on sending a man to the moon, maybe we could have spent that money on research on Alzheimer’s disease. A choice was involved.
Of course, another choice would be that we could have lowered taxes.
Maybe we can change the insulation on the fuel tank of the Space Shuttle Columbia, because the old stuff might be bad for the ozone layer.
The new stuff is just as good (then why was it not specified originally?), so there is no down side…
Disaster ensues…