Masks? SD? small gatherings...
I didn’t say we always need masks, although it wouldn’t be a bad idea, but yes smaller gatherings and some situational social distancing, is that really so devastating? Reread what I wrote about times when the virus isn’t prevalent or rising.
in March I suggested locking up the vulnerable for a month, 4 weeks no human contact, the hospitals could easily handle the ones we didn't know were vulnerable, and the known vulnerable who weren't protected properly. During that time the young and healthy should hug, kiss, and mingle to their hearts content, and really spread the thing, and from there ease back in. Why ease back in, and not straight heavy?
In case it wasn't spread well all over, and there are minor upticks still and the previously locked up vulnerable get ill.
Besides for the potential damage you may be inflicting on those not deemed vulnerable, and the still very high human cost, it would take far longer than 4 weeks to act on such a scheme. In the scenario you are proposing it is also far from guaranteed (in fact, more likely not than yes) that nearly enough people will become infected to grant herd immunity in one fell swoop (remember, measles requires population 95% immunity!), not to mention new people joining the ranks of the vulnerable all the time. That would just mean constantly allowing the virus to move through the population. Takes your problems with other plans and just exacerbates them.
You’re also placing quite the burden on those protecting the vulnerable, as when a virus is majorly prevalent in a society it has a way of finding itself into places it isn’t supposed to. How exactly are you guaranteeing zero entry into the hiding places of the vulnerable?
you implied tests alone, without the other 2 solutions you mentioned. To which I asked, if the tests are all you have, everyone will have it eventually with no treatment, so what do tests help?
What makes you think everyone will have it eventually? If, as I outlined twice already, rigorous testing (and tracing and mitigation) could keep the virus completely at bay there is no reason to assume all or most people will ever get infected, or, for that matter, ever come in contact with the virus.
The fastest vaccine ever developed took 4 years, and that wasn't a novel virus, with Mumps there was already plenty to work with when they started, why is it reasonable to say this one will take 1/4 of that amount of time?
How did breaking records by 3 years become the more likely scenario?
Besides, those inside (Fauci, Gates) have changed their tones, they now say we will know by December "if an effective vaccine is possible" clearly they have a reason to believe a vaccine may not be effective.
Source? Fauci actually mentioned this week that he expects a vaccine this year, possibly this month.
There are already vaccines in use by world powers and final stage trials nearly complete around the world. The question isn’t “if” a vaccine will be created. It’s when it will be deemed sufficiently safe and effective, and when it will be mass produced and distributed.
Covid viruses were previously hard to create a vaccine for, hence why we have no common cold vaccines.
I assume you mean coronaviruses, but this isn’t true. We don’t have a common cold vaccine because it isn’t sufficiently dangerous to have a market big enough to warrant it.