Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Nona Yobiz's avatar

I have to say, because Covid has become so politicized from the very beginning in the US, and with an election this year with so much outside of Covid on the line, I wonder if the decision to not highlight it, talk about it, and especially publicly push for a return to reasonable mitigation is a simple choice being made by the current administration not to risk something that could throw the election.

As a political observer, I understand the decision (if that is, in fact, what’s even happening). But as a person who values her health, I am infuriated at the same time. It is so frustrating to have come to this point in the US where you can’t even talk about returning to masking in congregate indoor settings without kicking off a complete fire storm of disinformation, political risk and denialism.

I guess the question would be, why can’t the current administration kind of quietly invest in picking up the pace on the alternate inhaled vaccines you reference?

Another question would be what happens when these new inhaled vaccines do become available if the uptake on them is not sufficient to do what needs to be done? In other words, if, due to the politicization of Covid generally, only 60% of people take the new vaccines, are we right back where we are today? Or, as I am hoping, will those who take these new inhaled vaccines be able to truly move on without the constant diligence of avoiding infection?

Expand full comment
pamela waldman's avatar

Thank you once again for so clearly explaining what we are facing. I would appreciate additional illumination of the risks of repeated infections, even if mild, with regard to long covid. It might convince some people to be less casual in taking precautions.

Expand full comment
22 more comments...

No posts