Science is filled with uncertainty. Paradigms, namely the basic "example", shift from day to day, and absolute science just does not exist. Take COVID, the most recent variant and say glycans. The most recent one has lots of new glycans and we know they can dramatically change protein structure. But not exactly, not even approximately.
Then we have erstwhile "experts" in the NY Times who tell us what to do. Some alleged academic sociologist having apparently no demonstrated expertise in virology or related fields espouses how we as a country must act stating:
We need stricter testing regimens involving several tests over time and even quarantine requirements for all travelers according to the incubation period determined by epidemiological data. We also need more intensive and widespread testing and tracing to cut off the spread of the variant. This means finally getting the sort of mass testing program that the United States has avoided and which has been part of successful responses to Covid in other countries.
The writer continues:
It’s possible Omicron developed through a persistent infection in an immunocompromised patient, such as someone who may not have been treated properly to control an H.I.V. infection. Such lengthy infections are suspected of having allowed other variants to develop as well. This is all the more reason that if the developed world is going to impose restrictions on South Africa, and other countries, it should provide them with financial support.In about two to three weeks, lab research and epidemiological data should start to provide a clearer picture of how transmissible this variant is, how it affects the severity of illness, and whether and how much it can evade some vaccine protection.
Now here is someone who on paper in my opinion seems clueless telling the rest of us what to do. We wrote extensively about these variants over the past almost two years yet we know that we still have major gaps.
So why should we even listen to someone who is clueless?
Posts
