So the new argument is: since there's a great variability to your personal response to COVID, we should develop a highly sophisticated and complex testing apparatus - the like that has never been done at scale before... so we can measure and evaluate your personal characteristics and hedge on your risk and likelihood of transmissibility
rather than
$20 worth of vaccines that are largely already quantified, proven and has a known baseline and is flexible enough to adjust and mitigate any foreseeable variants
Totally feasible and viable! I mean the labs must be ready for this testing, right? The projections about your risk/transmissibility must be so well understood that they can be forecastable from your antibody count undoubtedly. Absolutely and perfectly quantified down to the hour/min/second you'll be 'immune'. And the adoption rate from the general public certainly would be enough to move the needle and make an impact in battling the pandemic - I mean it's proven! Just like the shocking evidence from Skidork that Pfizer is nefariously influencing the government to advocate vaccines and boosters.
Or - tried and true vaccines, which we have. With the existing distribution methods.
I love it when people people talk about running government / public service items like a business. Then they propose some random half-baked idea as a foregone solution. The must envision some romanticized vision of an entrepreneur having an idea and the next day full scale roll out. It's clear they never worked legitimate business. The amount of effort into feasibility, viability, execution, engineering, adoption, maintenance, forecasting and projections for a solution at scale. GTFO. Armchair, layperson "takes" like this are pure poppycock. Tells me you don't actually do anything important in life.
Bookmarks