Dave, I had a mathematical discussion with a friend yesterday, and I think that there may now be a case for relaxation of some government restrictions, or public transgression of some restrictions, in some places, and/or among some communities.
However, I have major qualifications of this. Any such decision must be social and collective, because individuals’ actions will affect others’ exposure. It must be responsible; people’s deaths should be voluntary, and free from pain and distress to the greatest extent possible. And decision must not be rushed, because understanding of immune system response to SARS-CoV-2 is as yet minimal.
– – – – – – – – –
What evidence do you have that the “compulsory vaccine lobby” is influencing public information? As I understand it, there is no effective vaccine to lobby for, and since SARS-CoV-2 is a coronavirus and no effective vaccines have ever been developed against most other coronaviruses (eg. there are no vaccines for the common cold), there may be no such vaccine in the foreseeable future.
Why do you regard as “Stalinist” my suggestion of encouraging voluntary reorganisation of households and communities into groups of similar vulnerability and risk of exposure? At present, most people’s choices of who they associate with are dictated by their economic circumstances; those rich enough can afford sufficient accommodation to associate as they choose, but the majority have to be either at their only home, or at work, and have little choice about either. To me, voluntary reorganisation seems more liberal than economic coercion.