I’m not sure I subscribe to his analysis, It’s a very sociological one that seems somewhat skewed towards economic interests and and I’m not convinced that’s the most helpful at the moment. He makes some assumptions about the virus from a medical standpoint that aren't really substantiated. His ‘risk’ population focus is flawed as well because the at risk population is embedded within the general population so the measures actually do need to be widespread.
He also implies that ‘pandemic’ is the wrong word
because the situation isnt severe enought yet. But that is not the criteria for calling something a pandemic - it’s a pandemic when there are cases occuring that can’t be tracked to known source, I’m pretty sure, so that whole paragraph seems fairly flawed to me - as the premise of it’s argument is not accurate.
His stated facts in the rest of the article are good - I‘m just not onboard with his analysis or conclusions much. All good reading tho - like I’ve said recently in the face of a different kind of apocalypse, complex problems require lots of different minds