COVID Lockdowns Were a Giant Experiment. It Was a Failure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly at this point who cares. We did the best we could under a unique and heretofore inexperienced event. This is for scientists to be studying to plan for future pandemics. Getting angry now is ridiculous.

The problem is we weren’t allowed to ask questions and dissenting views were discouraged. Anytime you’re not allowed to ask questions or push back on something you should be concerned. The climate at the time didn’t allow questioning of precautions.

What are you talking about? There were plenty of people who questioned everything and did whatever they wanted anyway. It’s not like the police came and arrested people for expressing dissenting views. Even in early covid when people were dying, plenty of people questioned why they had to be inconvenienced to save other people’s lives and behaved accordingly. Lockdowns were never going to work in this country because we are a narcissistic and selfish society who rarely behave for the greater good of community.

+1 million - one of the most notable things about the COVID response was the almost immediate rise of a faction of loud people that were determined to push back against any measure that would inconvenience them in the slightest.

The measures were dumb. Just delaying the inevitable.

It was beneficial to delay until vaccines were available

Natural resistance could have built up in the interim. That’s the primary defense now. Not many are getting the vaccine these days.

Covid has killed off the majority that it will and it’s mutated to being less serious which is what was the goal. The vaccines don’t stop transmission.

People don’t seem to care that many millions died prematurely from Covid. Kids lost their families.

And? Restrictions wouldn't have helped either. Those people still would have become infected.

Getting infected after vaccination reduced deaths. Fewer people died. The restrictions made sense until vaccines were available.

How do you know this? I believed this at the time but now looking back it seems like the virus got weaker.

It got “weaker” because we were no longer an immune naive population.

Right, so it would have gotten weaker regardless if there had been vaccines or not. The virus would do what all virus' do- mutate but to remain active, it can't kill all its hosts so it gets weaker. Kills off the most vulnerable and everyone else survives. It was already weakening by the time the vaccines rolled out and those who are dying are the most vulnerable and it doesn't seem to matter if they are vaccinated or not. We vaccinated large swaths of the population and said, look, see, these people aren't dying but in reality, they almost certainly wouldn't have died anyway as the very, very large majority of people do in fact survive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, the vaccines prevented deaths. Red and blue states had similar mortality rates pre-vaccine. Post-vaccine, mortality rates are very different. States that have high uptake have much lower rates.

You say this as if saying it makes it true. It might be true but there are a number of variables that you aren't taking into consideration when making that assessment. Again, overall health of population, age of population, weather, population density, modes of transportation, access to health care, I could go on. And again, you are assuming red states weren't vaccinating and blue ones were. This may be true but blue states tend to be more populous (not looking at you Texas) so you can't look at just raw numbers but percentages. You could also try and look at FL versus Cali, seemingly similar weather but FL gets much, much hotter and intolerable to be outdoors and their population is significantly older. No FL sympathiser in the least but let's be honest when pulling data and highlight when variables work for our against our assessment.

[Anonymous]

I think that if people were willing to take responsibility for their actions and acknowledge that they were wrong, we’d be a lot more willing to let bygones be bygones. But just pretending everything was great is infuriating! And maybe that would end some people’s careers but at least they’d have some honor. This is not it.

[Anonymous]

Honor is a bit much to expect from politicians, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly at this point who cares. We did the best we could under a unique and heretofore inexperienced event. This is for scientists to be studying to plan for future pandemics. Getting angry now is ridiculous.

The problem is we weren’t allowed to ask questions and dissenting views were discouraged. Anytime you’re not allowed to ask questions or push back on something you should be concerned. The climate at the time didn’t allow questioning of precautions.

What are you talking about? There were plenty of people who questioned everything and did whatever they wanted anyway. It’s not like the police came and arrested people for expressing dissenting views. Even in early covid when people were dying, plenty of people questioned why they had to be inconvenienced to save other people’s lives and behaved accordingly. Lockdowns were never going to work in this country because we are a narcissistic and selfish society who rarely behave for the greater good of community.

+1 million - one of the most notable things about the COVID response was the almost immediate rise of a faction of loud people that were determined to push back against any measure that would inconvenience them in the slightest.

The measures were dumb. Just delaying the inevitable.

It was beneficial to delay until vaccines were available

Natural resistance could have built up in the interim. That’s the primary defense now. Not many are getting the vaccine these days.

Covid has killed off the majority that it will and it’s mutated to being less serious which is what was the goal. The vaccines don’t stop transmission.

People don’t seem to care that many millions died prematurely from Covid. Kids lost their families.

And? Restrictions wouldn't have helped either. Those people still would have become infected.

Getting infected after vaccination reduced deaths. Fewer people died. The restrictions made sense until vaccines were available.

How do you know this? I believed this at the time but now looking back it seems like the virus got weaker.

It got “weaker” because we were no longer an immune naive population.

Omicron is a milder strain because it targets the upper respiratory tract more than earlier variants.
https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/risk-comms-updates/update72_update-omicron-.pdf?sfvrsn=8d7cd61a_4
"Omicron appears to show preference for infecting and replicating in the upper respiratory tract, compared to Delta and other strains which prefer the lower respiratory tract. ... Preliminary studies suggest that Omicron appears to have decreased ability to infect lung tissue, which may be a reason why people infected with Omicron have a less severe disease compared to Delta. Early studies from animal models show that Omicron-infected animals show fewer clinical signs and have less severe disease." (slide 8)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, the vaccines prevented deaths. Red and blue states had similar mortality rates pre-vaccine. Post-vaccine, mortality rates are very different. States that have high uptake have much lower rates.

The red/blue state comparisons overlooked many relevant factors (as another PP noted, age, seasonality, income levels, rural/urban, etc.) and cherry-picked their starting points. The Pew study couldn't even determine whether the covid deaths occurred in vaxxed or unvaxxed people within the red/blue counties. Red counties have had higher overall mortality rates for many years, even before covid, due to the factors noted above. This is nothing new or unique to covid. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35672032/

In the last month the UK published breakdowns (May 2023), 95% of all covid deaths were in the vaccinated.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/deathsbyvaccinationstatusengland

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with this example is that Sweden is a small, culturally homogenous, fairly wealthy country in a northern climate. Would the same approach have the same outcome in the US? Probably not.

Like questions I'd want answered include:

- Did high conscientiousness among Swedish people result in voluntary social distancing during Covid peaks even without lockdowns?

- Did the climate in Sweden, with just a short summer season, allow Sweden to avoid the worst of the pandemic because people there socialize less outside their families in cold months anyway?

- Did Sweden's strong social safety net play a role?

I do tend to think that hard, very restrictive lockdowns likely have less of an effect on death rates than we think, and also that prolonged lockdowns have real costs that we are still reluctant to acknowledge in many cases.

The problem is that this is a topic that’s such a magnet for propagandists and kooks that it’s hard to have a rational discussion about this.

We’re the descendants of people who survived endless waves of epidemics.

Chances are that, given a few days’ notice, people will spontaneously, instinctively, ferociously enforce any lockdowns that are really necessary.

The sign that the lockdowns stopped being necessary once we had access to masks is that plenty of ordinary people rebelled against the lockdowns after about two or three weeks.

But, on the other hand, it seems a little silly to judge the people who imposed the lockdowns. For the first few weeks, they had no idea what they were really up against.

And it’s not really fair to compare the United States with another country, because we probably don’t know what combination of virus variants, immune system genes and antibodies people went into the pandemic with.

Maybe the United States had worse results because a tougher strain dominated here, or because we had more people with genes that made them vulnerable to COVID.

Another problem is that it’s easy to assume that anyone who brings up the topic is a Russian or Chinese social media outreach worker who mainly wants to stir up trouble, install a fascist puppet government in Washington and help Putin conquer Europe.

I think most people remember and understand the uncertainty that came in the spring of 2020, and can forgive all but the silliest restrictions (e.g., closed playgrounds).

The issue is that many restrictions continued long after that initial knee-jerk reaction to a new risk.

They were not silly restrictions. They were in place to reduce hospitalizations for a highly contagious illness where hospital beds and ventilators were scarce. If you are so upset over being asked to stay home for a few weeks, you really need your mental health checked.

But it wasn't for a few weeks. It was a year and a half or so for public school kids.

In retrospect, Fauci and the others that recommended publics remain closed. While privates remained open. And bars. And restaurants. And retail.

I mean, really. Federal and local governments threw kids under the bus.

Will never forgive them for that

I don't think anyone can reason with someone like you. You are dug in so far, you don't care what harm comes from your unreasonable stance. There are discussions to be had about what can be learned, but you and your cohort of "we will never forget and we will never forgive" are just so far gone. You are interested in learning lessons, just placing blame. You need a scapegoat and blood. And you'll f stuff up in the future in your blind stupidity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think that if people were willing to take responsibility for their actions and acknowledge that they were wrong, we’d be a lot more willing to let bygones be bygones. But just pretending everything was great is infuriating! And maybe that would end some people’s careers but at least they’d have some honor. This is not it.

So you are also lobbying for basically all the GOP representatives in the House who continually refuse to do their job and just fund the government instead of playing games? Right?

And you are out there lobbying for every single business that has caused harm to people to apologize and be held liable. And you won't buy anything from them until you get that apology, right?

You and your ilk are just so ridiculous and waste everyone's time. You are no different than any single issue voter. Waste of space.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that if people were willing to take responsibility for their actions and acknowledge that they were wrong, we’d be a lot more willing to let bygones be bygones. But just pretending everything was great is infuriating! And maybe that would end some people’s careers but at least they’d have some honor. This is not it.

So you are also lobbying for basically all the GOP representatives in the House who continually refuse to do their job and just fund the government instead of playing games? Right?

And you are out there lobbying for every single business that has caused harm to people to apologize and be held liable. And you won't buy anything from them until you get that apology, right?

You and your ilk are just so ridiculous and waste everyone's time. You are no different than any single issue voter. Waste of space.

Democrats were in charge for the bulk of the time. They didn't behave in a cautious way and they should have set a good example. Biden was the worst offender.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly at this point who cares. We did the best we could under a unique and heretofore inexperienced event. This is for scientists to be studying to plan for future pandemics. Getting angry now is ridiculous.

The problem is we weren’t allowed to ask questions and dissenting views were discouraged. Anytime you’re not allowed to ask questions or push back on something you should be concerned. The climate at the time didn’t allow questioning of precautions.

What are you talking about? There were plenty of people who questioned everything and did whatever they wanted anyway. It’s not like the police came and arrested people for expressing dissenting views. Even in early covid when people were dying, plenty of people questioned why they had to be inconvenienced to save other people’s lives and behaved accordingly. Lockdowns were never going to work in this country because we are a narcissistic and selfish society who rarely behave for the greater good of community.

+1 million - one of the most notable things about the COVID response was the almost immediate rise of a faction of loud people that were determined to push back against any measure that would inconvenience them in the slightest.

The measures were dumb. Just delaying the inevitable.

The truth is, we don't really know. There were too many people who ignored measures or implemented them improperly (see people with masks under their noses). And I don't trust a lot of data. See the lady on one of these threads who talks about how they were supposed to have a covid test before getting on a plane and the nurse came, they paid her to just go away, and she didn't do the test. So how many people did that nurse NOT test but report as negative? Repeat that kind of BS all over the country and you get suspect, useless "data".

So when people go on on here about "the data" i almost have to laugh. Except that it's so sad. What decent data do we really have?

And these same people are saying outright they will ignore public health directives next time around because of what they have "learned". Even though they have no idea what could be the cause of the next pandemic and how it will differ from covid.

God help us all.

Measures that the public is unable or unwilling to perform reliably are not effective public health measures. That should be a major lesson from the pandemic response. We spent 18 months keeping kids out of school and telling people to mask while walking on the sidewalk or between the restaurant table and bathroom rather than actually focusing on measures to help those at risk of severe illness.

We are talking about two different kinds of effective. There is effective re: preventing spread of a disease. Masking and some of the measures, had they been implemented widely and properly, could have done that.

You are talking about PR. Find me anything you can get all Americans to do these days. Americans are a bunch of stupid, entitled little sh**s who won't do much of anything if it inconveniences them.

Different things. And Americans' stupidity is not a valid reason not to try when something like a pandemic happens. But it is not encouraging for the future.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that if people were willing to take responsibility for their actions and acknowledge that they were wrong, we’d be a lot more willing to let bygones be bygones. But just pretending everything was great is infuriating! And maybe that would end some people’s careers but at least they’d have some honor. This is not it.

So you are also lobbying for basically all the GOP representatives in the House who continually refuse to do their job and just fund the government instead of playing games? Right?

And you are out there lobbying for every single business that has caused harm to people to apologize and be held liable. And you won't buy anything from them until you get that apology, right?

You and your ilk are just so ridiculous and waste everyone's time. You are no different than any single issue voter. Waste of space.

Democrats were in charge for the bulk of the time. They didn't behave in a cautious way and they should have set a good example. Biden was the worst offender.

Whatever brainwashed RWNJ. No amount of reality will sway someone like you. You are a hypocrite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with this example is that Sweden is a small, culturally homogenous, fairly wealthy country in a northern climate. Would the same approach have the same outcome in the US? Probably not.

Like questions I'd want answered include:

- Did high conscientiousness among Swedish people result in voluntary social distancing during Covid peaks even without lockdowns?

- Did the climate in Sweden, with just a short summer season, allow Sweden to avoid the worst of the pandemic because people there socialize less outside their families in cold months anyway?

- Did Sweden's strong social safety net play a role?

I do tend to think that hard, very restrictive lockdowns likely have less of an effect on death rates than we think, and also that prolonged lockdowns have real costs that we are still reluctant to acknowledge in many cases.

The problem is that this is a topic that’s such a magnet for propagandists and kooks that it’s hard to have a rational discussion about this.

We’re the descendants of people who survived endless waves of epidemics.

Chances are that, given a few days’ notice, people will spontaneously, instinctively, ferociously enforce any lockdowns that are really necessary.

The sign that the lockdowns stopped being necessary once we had access to masks is that plenty of ordinary people rebelled against the lockdowns after about two or three weeks.

But, on the other hand, it seems a little silly to judge the people who imposed the lockdowns. For the first few weeks, they had no idea what they were really up against.

And it’s not really fair to compare the United States with another country, because we probably don’t know what combination of virus variants, immune system genes and antibodies people went into the pandemic with.

Maybe the United States had worse results because a tougher strain dominated here, or because we had more people with genes that made them vulnerable to COVID.

Another problem is that it’s easy to assume that anyone who brings up the topic is a Russian or Chinese social media outreach worker who mainly wants to stir up trouble, install a fascist puppet government in Washington and help Putin conquer Europe.

I think most people remember and understand the uncertainty that came in the spring of 2020, and can forgive all but the silliest restrictions (e.g., closed playgrounds).

The issue is that many restrictions continued long after that initial knee-jerk reaction to a new risk.

They were not silly restrictions. They were in place to reduce hospitalizations for a highly contagious illness where hospital beds and ventilators were scarce. If you are so upset over being asked to stay home for a few weeks, you really need your mental health checked.

Other silly ideas we had to deal with: wiping down groceries, decontaminating mail, wiping down grocery carts, wiping down checkout belts, etc.

Activities that temporarily mollified the germaphobes until they thought of new "health precautions."

Remember two weeks to flatten the curve that changed to Zero COVID?

Actually doing some stuff like wiping down grocery carts and check out belts is a good practice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with this example is that Sweden is a small, culturally homogenous, fairly wealthy country in a northern climate. Would the same approach have the same outcome in the US? Probably not.

Like questions I'd want answered include:

- Did high conscientiousness among Swedish people result in voluntary social distancing during Covid peaks even without lockdowns?

- Did the climate in Sweden, with just a short summer season, allow Sweden to avoid the worst of the pandemic because people there socialize less outside their families in cold months anyway?

- Did Sweden's strong social safety net play a role?

I do tend to think that hard, very restrictive lockdowns likely have less of an effect on death rates than we think, and also that prolonged lockdowns have real costs that we are still reluctant to acknowledge in many cases.

The problem is that this is a topic that’s such a magnet for propagandists and kooks that it’s hard to have a rational discussion about this.

We’re the descendants of people who survived endless waves of epidemics.

Chances are that, given a few days’ notice, people will spontaneously, instinctively, ferociously enforce any lockdowns that are really necessary.

The sign that the lockdowns stopped being necessary once we had access to masks is that plenty of ordinary people rebelled against the lockdowns after about two or three weeks.

But, on the other hand, it seems a little silly to judge the people who imposed the lockdowns. For the first few weeks, they had no idea what they were really up against.

And it’s not really fair to compare the United States with another country, because we probably don’t know what combination of virus variants, immune system genes and antibodies people went into the pandemic with.

Maybe the United States had worse results because a tougher strain dominated here, or because we had more people with genes that made them vulnerable to COVID.

Another problem is that it’s easy to assume that anyone who brings up the topic is a Russian or Chinese social media outreach worker who mainly wants to stir up trouble, install a fascist puppet government in Washington and help Putin conquer Europe.

I think most people remember and understand the uncertainty that came in the spring of 2020, and can forgive all but the silliest restrictions (e.g., closed playgrounds).

The issue is that many restrictions continued long after that initial knee-jerk reaction to a new risk.

They were not silly restrictions. They were in place to reduce hospitalizations for a highly contagious illness where hospital beds and ventilators were scarce. If you are so upset over being asked to stay home for a few weeks, you really need your mental health checked.

But it wasn't for a few weeks. It was a year and a half or so for public school kids.

In retrospect, Fauci and the others that recommended publics remain closed. While privates remained open. And bars. And restaurants. And retail.

I mean, really. Federal and local governments threw kids under the bus.

Will never forgive them for that

I don't think anyone can reason with someone like you. You are dug in so far, you don't care what harm comes from your unreasonable stance. There are discussions to be had about what can be learned, but you and your cohort of "we will never forget and we will never forgive" are just so far gone. You are interested in learning lessons, just placing blame. You need a scapegoat and blood. And you'll f stuff up in the future in your blind stupidity.

Assigning blame and accepting responsibility are commonly accepted elements of dealing with mistakes. Why are you so opposed to that in this case?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with this example is that Sweden is a small, culturally homogenous, fairly wealthy country in a northern climate. Would the same approach have the same outcome in the US? Probably not.

Like questions I'd want answered include:

- Did high conscientiousness among Swedish people result in voluntary social distancing during Covid peaks even without lockdowns?

- Did the climate in Sweden, with just a short summer season, allow Sweden to avoid the worst of the pandemic because people there socialize less outside their families in cold months anyway?

- Did Sweden's strong social safety net play a role?

I do tend to think that hard, very restrictive lockdowns likely have less of an effect on death rates than we think, and also that prolonged lockdowns have real costs that we are still reluctant to acknowledge in many cases.

The problem is that this is a topic that’s such a magnet for propagandists and kooks that it’s hard to have a rational discussion about this.

We’re the descendants of people who survived endless waves of epidemics.

Chances are that, given a few days’ notice, people will spontaneously, instinctively, ferociously enforce any lockdowns that are really necessary.

The sign that the lockdowns stopped being necessary once we had access to masks is that plenty of ordinary people rebelled against the lockdowns after about two or three weeks.

But, on the other hand, it seems a little silly to judge the people who imposed the lockdowns. For the first few weeks, they had no idea what they were really up against.

And it’s not really fair to compare the United States with another country, because we probably don’t know what combination of virus variants, immune system genes and antibodies people went into the pandemic with.

Maybe the United States had worse results because a tougher strain dominated here, or because we had more people with genes that made them vulnerable to COVID.

Another problem is that it’s easy to assume that anyone who brings up the topic is a Russian or Chinese social media outreach worker who mainly wants to stir up trouble, install a fascist puppet government in Washington and help Putin conquer Europe.

I think most people remember and understand the uncertainty that came in the spring of 2020, and can forgive all but the silliest restrictions (e.g., closed playgrounds).

The issue is that many restrictions continued long after that initial knee-jerk reaction to a new risk.

They were not silly restrictions. They were in place to reduce hospitalizations for a highly contagious illness where hospital beds and ventilators were scarce. If you are so upset over being asked to stay home for a few weeks, you really need your mental health checked.

Other silly ideas we had to deal with: wiping down groceries, decontaminating mail, wiping down grocery carts, wiping down checkout belts, etc.

Activities that temporarily mollified the germaphobes until they thought of new "health precautions."

Remember two weeks to flatten the curve that changed to Zero COVID?

Actually doing some stuff like wiping down grocery carts and check out belts is a good practice.

Or you could stop biting your nails and picking your nose. Your hands aren't expected to be sterile.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly at this point who cares. We did the best we could under a unique and heretofore inexperienced event. This is for scientists to be studying to plan for future pandemics. Getting angry now is ridiculous.

The problem is we weren’t allowed to ask questions and dissenting views were discouraged. Anytime you’re not allowed to ask questions or push back on something you should be concerned. The climate at the time didn’t allow questioning of precautions.

What are you talking about? There were plenty of people who questioned everything and did whatever they wanted anyway. It’s not like the police came and arrested people for expressing dissenting views. Even in early covid when people were dying, plenty of people questioned why they had to be inconvenienced to save other people’s lives and behaved accordingly. Lockdowns were never going to work in this country because we are a narcissistic and selfish society who rarely behave for the greater good of community.

+1 million - one of the most notable things about the COVID response was the almost immediate rise of a faction of loud people that were determined to push back against any measure that would inconvenience them in the slightest.

The measures were dumb. Just delaying the inevitable.

The truth is, we don't really know. There were too many people who ignored measures or implemented them improperly (see people with masks under their noses). And I don't trust a lot of data. See the lady on one of these threads who talks about how they were supposed to have a covid test before getting on a plane and the nurse came, they paid her to just go away, and she didn't do the test. So how many people did that nurse NOT test but report as negative? Repeat that kind of BS all over the country and you get suspect, useless "data".

So when people go on on here about "the data" i almost have to laugh. Except that it's so sad. What decent data do we really have?

And these same people are saying outright they will ignore public health directives next time around because of what they have "learned". Even though they have no idea what could be the cause of the next pandemic and how it will differ from covid.

God help us all.

Measures that the public is unable or unwilling to perform reliably are not effective public health measures. That should be a major lesson from the pandemic response. We spent 18 months keeping kids out of school and telling people to mask while walking on the sidewalk or between the restaurant table and bathroom rather than actually focusing on measures to help those at risk of severe illness.

We are talking about two different kinds of effective. There is effective re: preventing spread of a disease. Masking and some of the measures, had they been implemented widely and properly, could have done that.

You are talking about PR. Find me anything you can get all Americans to do these days. Americans are a bunch of stupid, entitled little sh**s who won't do much of anything if it inconveniences them.

Different things. And Americans' stupidity is not a valid reason not to try when something like a pandemic happens. But it is not encouraging for the future.

That's like claiming abstinence-only education is an effective measure for preventing unwanted pregnancies.

Public health measures are not effective if the public can't or won't adhere to them. That's part of what makes public health challenging. If that doesn't make sense to you, then you shouldn't be setting public policy.