88V8 wrote:The only point I would take on board from the OP is that the vaccine longevity is currently lacking.
A chap on Times Radio this morning was commenting that 6-monthly topups might be needed.
Hopefully not.
V8
It's a point, one which is coming to its conclusion by hindsight, and not actually a very pertinent point. Without the vaccine, our situation would have been far worse. Of course, the cynic would say: well prove it! We shouldn't rise to such debating tactics, however, but be confident in the knowledge we did the best that could be done in the circumstances.
The development of the vaccine was crucial in the fight, and no doubt better vaccines would emerge if necessary.
The OP seems to think we should have just have put up and suffered the death rate which would have resulted, only mitigated by some "treatments" which he apparently knows about, but no one else did. Perhaps bleach injections?
Now, I acknowledge that the "let it rip" philosophy has some merit, but you have to go into that knowing that deaths would be far higher.* It's a striclty survival of the fittest, and the OP might have been one to cop it if the rest of the population hadn't been vaccinated. His prerogative, I guess.
Think back to a world in which there was no knowledge of vaccines and look at the sufferring of ordinary folk. I wouldn't vote for that approach.
*indeed early on, for a week or two, I believe letting it rip to obtain herd immunity was considered, but soon rejected.
Arb.