The vaccine as a population placebo has to have a similar reaction on a population. The population-placebo vaccine has to have adverse effects normally associated with vaccines. There needs to be people who will suffer from reactions, and even some some people die from the vaccine. This would prove to the public that this is real, and if it is real, it might be effective. The placebo effect is on the entire population in order calm it back to something closer to normal.
The data exposes a flaw in our medical systems being unrealistically pessimistic about health risks, and about natural immunity capabilities. Our medical systems are overreacting out of a systemic hysteria of the entire discipline that increasingly believes that each day is the first day of the end of the world. In the particular disciplines of virology and epidemiology, the data raises serious doubts about whether these sciences are correct and mature enough to drive public policy. The evidence of this years experience points to these disciplines not being deserving of belonging to science.
There is a risk to mandating a single option for everyone. If that option would eventual start to show serious problems later on, everyone would face the risk of experiencing similar problems. Having a multitude of options available for different groups, and pursuing all of these could have a better overall outcome than focusing on the current objective of vaccinating everyone with a very new technology.
Though this processing of big data, the algorithm will make discoveries about the world that it is incapable of disclosing to humans. Instead it will act on these discoveries in an attempt to optimize some objective. There is a much more profound benefit of this arrangement: if the humans were to become aware of the discovery, they may be incapable of handling it. Humans will panic at the implications.
The real risk of the current universal imposition of restrictions and mandates for a medical issue is that will draw widespread attention to the current state of the medical practice itself. People will learn more about the downsides and the misdirected priorities of benefiting the elderly at the expense of the younger generations. At some point, they may decide that this is not a system they want to continue to support. The bubble will burst.
This immediate dismissal of even the potential of corruption in government indicates that we are no longer in a democracy. In particular, we reject the legitimacy of any objection from our fellow citizens. We presume that all objections have some corrupt political motive. Every objection gets attached to some political identity instead of being evaluated on its own merits. This reduces the population to mere spectators to the government, sitting on opposite sides of an allegorical stadium shouting at each other while the game proceeds on the field. Like those fans, we have no actual influence on the plays or the execution of the plays, but we will cheer if one side advances, or boo if the other side advances.
Given what we now know about this virus, our ancestral trust in God would have served us must better than our actual course of action that instead trusted humans acting beyond the boundary they should not have crossed.
The freeze dance game is an analogy of what lock down subjects to young people. In that game, someone plays music that everyone enjoys dancing to. When everyone starts getting well into their dancing, someone stops the music and everyone must freeze in their position. Anyone who continues to move is taken out of the game, even if that movement involves catching ones balance. When translated to real life, it is most hazardous for the younger generations.
The insurance against possible non-contagious conditions may not deliver what was promised if a contagious event occurs, and the medicine for contagious diseases do not promise a very impressive recovery rate. With COVID19, we learned that our health care premiums do not guarantee access to health care when we need it.
The continued obsession on COVID19 is shining a bright light on this very fundamental fact: we are asking the young to sacrifice their future calendars for the sole sake of preserving the future calendars of the retirement-age group. Eventually, that light will shine on the massive qualitative difference of those calendars.