The leading theory is that Covid-19 started in a lab in China. I thought it was possible but I also thought it was equally possible to be from poorly kept animals on hormones/antibiotics that may have caused a mutation of some type. Of course, I'm not particularly knowledgeable about things things and am applying general knowledge. Either way, any way, we will someday figure it all out. Everything sort of takes time.
When Covid-19 started consuming lives people were under duress, grocery store shelves were empty, and no one knew what it all meant. Some of this is likely to happen as part of our general existence in the same space, time and location. However, the leap in destructiveness isn't often seen on this level. i.e. meaning we typically might not see breakouts that are so lethal because there is more time to cure them through natural emergence and slower spreading pace (A leap meaning it is possible it wasn't natural.)
Its the same concept with masks. We now know that masks may not have been as helpful as initially thought, but we also know that at the time we did not know. Its better to be safe then sorry. I used to tell people the best thing to do is have most people use masks but also a smaller percentage of people who did not use mask or take initial inoculations as we hedge our bets. In other words, put in place the legal structure that gets most of the people protected but have some caveat for those who want an exemption so that they are making a conscious choice not to mask. Also they assume risk. (I of course could have been wrong as well. I would still encourage people to wear masks if there is a next time because it is likely to have some impact even if we don't know specifically what level. Until its been invalidated its still likely based on our disease knowledge to be of benefit. There either are or will be studies coming out soon that will determine best practices. It takes a few years to get a literature base.).
Typically you want the riskier behavior to be a smaller percentage of people because based on evidence at the time, most people will be best helped by a vaccination and the harm from masking was annoying but minimal (I'm not talking about the political side of it.). As time goes on we get a better perspective. That doesn't mean that those who didn't mask had any more knowledge than those that did mask (There was little to no info to make effective conclusions.) but that they took a guess based on what they perceived to be an infringement of rights and in this case it sort of worked out.
A question is, "When we are dealing with dangerous unknowns what is "reasonable"?
As time goes on we will understand more. Lab or not.....it changed world culture. One possible explanation is that if China knew it was a lab experiment gone wrong (which we don't know for sure is true. Although you can track back the mutations I believe to their original source if you can get samples. ) might be that they locked down harder then other nations because they were more aware of its destructive power. It could also be that culture plays a part in how much rights government and people have that makes locking down possible on this level. However, if the risks of lockdown are superseding the risks of injury then we can say there is something else going on in the decision making.
Turn the next page in world history........
No comments:
Post a Comment