I largely agree, and I said as much to JE previously. The problem is, we're not completely locking the unvaccinated out of society. As long as they're allowed to walk around freely, the virus has opportunities to spread, and therefore mutate.
The idea that locking down until the entire planet is vaccinated will never fly because everyone is so concerned with their own personal freedoms. And corporations. But we could eradicate this thing. We won't because of the above. But we could.
A lockdown cannot eradicate it.
I mean theoretically yes, but it's legit impossible.
If one city had to be locked down, sure you can make the argument.
But how the freak do you lock down the entire planet for say 2 or 3 months?
Are people going to literally stop making all food and goods globally for that period of time? Is the expectation that 4-5 billion freaking people will all comply for several months?
I attempt to keep an open mind, but I don't see the purpose or the end goal of this. You cannot eliminate a disease that's spread globally with a lockdown (unless it's a bizarre disease that would become eradicated in hours, which this clearly is not)
Now the only legit argument I can see someone making for a lockdown. Is hey Covid-19 is spreading hardcore because of Thanksgiving Christmas and new years and hosptials/testing/treatment capabilities etc are all over capicity, and we're needing to excrement down essential services because everyone's freaking sick. We need to temporarily lock down for a few days/weeks just to catch our breath and get over this holiday hump. It's a short term focused effort with a clear goal of mitigating the holidays
And the other difference is the feasibility. A global lockdown to eradicate covid you'd need 100% compliance essentially all of the time.
A temporary lockdown (ie to get over the holidays) will be successful whether you get 40% compliance or 90%. As the goal is simply slow excrement down and flatten the curve from the holidays (and the emerging omnicron ofc)
