Maybe I am just a dumb math major/software developer and not a super duper smart as lord Fauci the infallible, but I simply can't understand why the most sensible policy against a disease with significant death rates when the elderly and those with certain health conditions catch it, but without signifigant death rates when the bulk of the working population and school kids catch it is to isolate only the vulnerable away from the rest of us, and then let the virus tear through the rest of us until we get a herd immunity as quickly as possible. Seems obvious that this would result in the fewer deaths and give the virus less time to develop mutations and have less impact on the economy.
The world seems to be mad with control freaks, frightened sheep-people, big pharma money cows, and graft and stupidity. Its alarming and disgusting.
1) A case, one that doesn’t hospitalize or die, is a mutation engine. A vaccinated case and an unvaccinated case are both mutation engines.
2) It has become popular to find santuary in the concept that “virus mutations become less worrisome, not more worrisome, than the original.” Here is Russia’s death curve, scroll to daily deaths :
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/russia/
That’s Delta, and their Japan/Russia Sputnik V vaccine was fully verified as effective by The Lancet. That look like Delta is less worrisome than the original?
3) The only US death/hospital stats that are legitimate are from 1 August onward, when Delta achieved a high proportion of total cases in the US. They already know vax’s are failing against Delta. The CDC is preparing for boosters for this very reason. They won’t be boosters, in the context of another injection of the same vax. The vax will be tweaked for Delta, because they have no choice.
That's what you actually wanted to say, right?
Regards,