link to original reddit post by /u/thisistheperfectname

Let's all put our critical thinking hats on. We know a few things about COVID that are relevant when it comes to measures taken against it.

  1. It's a highly infectious coronavirus.

  2. It's prone to mutation.

  3. It has animal reservoirs.

These three attributes make it clear that eradication is off the table. I've been saying this since January last year, and some local health authorities (Iowa, for example) have already declared it endemic. Epidemiologists know these things and are involved in at least some form of policy-making across the West.

Why do we get policies, especially in the Anglosphere, whose only logical disease-related ends involve eradication of the disease? Look at Australia and New Zealand, who by virtue of their geographic isolation, fell into the delusion that they could have zero cases forever and keep it that way. Their slip into the abyss was largely motivated by panic in the face of that not working.

I propose that unrealistic goals continue to be advanced simply because incentives are not aligned with accomplishing goals, but having a goal in front of the society. Look at Fauci's celebrity for an example. He has finally washed away the left's former hatred of him over the AIDS epidemic in the '80s and gained massive amounts of celebrity in the process. Why would he ever give up this cultural cachet?

Too many people in high places derive a sense of importance from "doing something" about COVID. Too many others see it as an opportunity to grab power. A forever-pandemic is conducive to both goals, and there is overlap between both groups. The lockdowns and mandates are done when we say they are, and the magic word of the day is "no."