Its a trade-off, of course. When the potential probability for causing deaths goes below a certain point, then the benefit of the activity (economic, human happiness etc.) outweighs and it goes ahead. If that were not the case, we'd all have already been locking ourselves away due to the many occasionally fatal things that we expose ourselves to. Take the flu, driving, attending a party, going out in any public place, etc.
Plus, the venues are going to operate at greatly reduced capacities with space between parties, which has shown to lower the chances of infection.
All of that adds up to a really low probability of causing death (even indirectly), making it relatively safe. When something passes our standard of "relatively safe", and we want to do it, we do.
Since a counter-argument is: "You're not just risking your own life", to that, I'd say that that is true for most of the risks we take routinely, as well. An example would be driving. When someone gets in an accident, other people can die, say a bystander on the sidewalk. But there is a very low chance of that, so we go ahead and do it, even when the trip is not necessary.
When the benefit outweighs the risk, we do things.
Your reaction indicates you think the risk is still significant of people dying from going to these future concerts, so I would encourage you to look into some of the current numbers. Different people have a different sense of this though, and to answer your question, yes, for myself, I think it is a good idea. They are still being very careful and restrictive.
Doesn't this drastically increase the potential for dangerous mutations? All that analysis regarding the current strains doesn't capture the full picture to me.
Each new case gives the virus a few dozen or hundred or thousand generations to mutate, depending on how large and long the infection goes. We're in a period where the severity and number of infections has lowered, so mutation is less likely. A dangerous mutation is extremely rare, fortunately.
> We're in a period where the severity and number of infections has lowered, so mutation is less likely. A dangerous mutation is extremely rare, fortunately.
That's not just a coincidence, right? Isn't that because we're restricting indoor mass gatherings and such? Meaning that reversing the latter seems precisely like the kind of thing that would give a virus plenty of opportunities to mutate?
The opportunities to mutate depend on the number of infections, and on the immune response of the infectee. Due to deaths, naturally-conferred immunity, and vaccine-induced immunity, there just aren't those opportunities anymore, here in the US and especially California. A large fraction of us have already tested positive, or been exposed and infected, even if we have not tested at the time we were infected. The fraction of people that are either immune, or able to easily fight off the infection due to healthy immune response, is now sufficient to lower the overall level of population infection. The fraction of people who are susceptible to serious, long-term bouts with the virus is small and heading smaller. Very much unlike the beginning of the pandemic.
because the decision is not based purely on safety, but all the other things politicians need to consider and balance, such as the local economy. but i agree with you that i prefer safety to be the top priority and wait a few more months to get the immunity high enough for the virus's r0 factor to go below 1.
The general consensus is that there's not enough time for a big new wave to start before vaccination finishes tamping it down. Note that "everyone is eligible" isn't expected to be a huge change in practice: most urban counties in California already have over 50% of the adult population vaccinated, rising about a percentage point each day.
> Using Covid-19 vaccine passports to tailor restrictions, however, has drawn staunch opposition based on several weighty concerns.1 First, while vaccine supply remains limited, privileging people who are fortunate enough to have gained early access is morally questionable. Second, even after supply constraints ease, rates of vaccination among racial minorities and low-income populations seem likely to remain disproportionately low; relatedly, if history is a guide, programs that confer social privilege on the basis of “fitness” can lead to invidious discrimination. Third, the extent of protection conferred by vaccination, particularly against new variants, is not yet well understood, nor is the potential for viral transmission by people who have been vaccinated. Fourth, privileging the vaccinated will penalize people with religious or philosophical objections to vaccination. Finally, we lack a consensus approach to accurately certifying vaccination.
This is a 100% political and 0% scientific decision! With more data coming that vaccines are not so efficacious against new variants and vaccine immunity starting to expire in May for those first vaccinated, I think we're going back to square 1 in the Fall!
No one knows when vaccine or natural immunity expires. We only know that it doesn't expire within 6 months, because that's the longest it has been tested so far. Most experts expect immunity to last much, much longer than that.
How can a precise date be selected so far in advance? Shouldn't it be based on the status of the pandemic? If they decided it is already a pretty good situation, why not open now?
There's a difference between "we know everything will be ok by June 15" and "businesses should plan on reopening starting June 15."
60 or so days is not that far out, it's still cutting it close for a lot of businesses that need time to plan for reopenings. It's really a "not-before" deadline if anything.
> Dr. Ghaly told reporters that the June 15th date was chosen because it falls about 8 weeks after all California residents become eligible for the COVID-19 vaccine. However, that date could shift if the vaccine supply is interrupted or if health officials see a spike in hospitalizations for the coronavirus.
The selected date is a planned date with the possibility of it shifting. It's based on crunching the numbers. A large percentage of the state (nearly 50%) and a very large percentage of the older (and more vulnerable) population (around 70%) has already been vaccinated. Now that eligibility will be opened up to all residents and based on the rate of vaccinations the selected date means not just a simple majority but a vast majority of their population will have received at least one, if not both, doses by June 15th.
EDIT:
Some more number crunching. Per the article they're distributing 2 million doses a week. They have an approximate population of 40 million. At least 20 million have been vaccinated today. This gives them about 10 weeks (from now) to distribute 20 million doses (if they are to hit 100% or very near it) which fits with their current rate of vaccinations. So the date is reasonable on the surface using these projections depending on what their target threshold for vaccinations are. They should easily have 90% with at least one dose by then and can conceivably have 100% if everyone goes in for vaccinations (which won't happen, of course).
You seem to be assuming that people getting their first dose will receive priority somehow in vaccination. As it is right now, those 20 million doses only represent ~15-25% of all Californians being fully vaccinated and around 30-35% having received at least one dose. There's mathematically no way 20 million more shots gets us to 90%.
Also, won't the vaccine protection start expiring in June for those who got vaccinated in December 2020 and January 2021? Basically, you need to keep re-vaccinating around 7 million people on average every month and this is given the existing vaccine still protect you from the growing number of variants.
Titres of antibodies drop in time. You can't expect this to last forever. Plus, vaccines are less effective against certain variants even at peak titres, so, who knows how effective a vaccine administered today will be in the variants in circulation 6 months from now. Plus, mass vaccinations apply evolutionary pressure and although they slow the spread and thus the variability, they force only new variants or straints to spread, which could send us back to square one.
It’s planned based on vaccination timelines, but subject to change based on other indicia. Frim the article: “Dr. Ghaly told reporters that the June 15th date was chosen because it falls about 8 weeks after all California residents become eligible for the COVID-19 vaccine. However, that date could shift if the vaccine supply is interrupted or if health officials see a spike in hospitalizations for the coronavirus.”
> Shouldn't it be based on the status of the pandemic?
That’s what its based on. There are strong expectations of how vaccination effects that.
> If they decided it is already a pretty good situation
They did not. (Though current trends in vaccination and other metrics are heading in a good direction.)
Why on Earth can they not hold off for another month or two? Does this seem like a good idea to anyone?