First, I am reliably informed there is no such term as ‘herd immunity’ in public health medicine. The term only exists in veterinary medicine. So this is not a medical, epidemiological or public health declaration in that case.
What the hell does he think the effect of a vaccine is then?
(which is unsurprising as the common cold is also a Covid)
Third, no policy of this sort has ever been used in society.
It’s the way we deal with every infectious disease we can. Measles, mumps, smallpox, we attempt at least to gain herd immunity.
This is not, then, epidemiology at all. Nor is it science.
Well, yes Snippa, I think we can say that of your maunderings.
And the logic that underpins it is that of that branch of economic thinking.
Over time I have formed the very firm opinion that many who adhere to that way of thinking are of the opinion that the elderly are simply a burden on society who do not add to economic production. If you look at how much the elderly do add to the production side of GDP this is, of course, a sustainable argument in a great many cases. It takes only a moment in that case to extend the argument and to argue that the elderly do, then, have no worth. And what this so-called epidemiological approach does is in that case provide is cover for what I think might best be called the cull of the elderly that many of this persuasion would, I think, like.
Quite so, us elderly free market liberals are all in favour of a cull of elderly folks.
And all that is being done in the interests of supporting the free enterprise economy to operate without constraints because it is assumed that the elderly are pretty much outside it.
Nurse, more lithium please.
So let’s stop the pretence that this has anything at all to do with health issues. This is the economics of neoliberalism running riot, and revealing in the process its utter indifference to the interests of anyone but those who can ‘add value’ within that system.
He’s republished it here. With a not moderated by him comments section.