And this is where we disagree. Because the mutations happen anyhow and are more likely to evade a protection that exists than one that doesn't. Sure, there's some small effect to limiting spread - but it's too low for mandates to be worth the cost right now.
The bit in bold doesn't make any sense. You can't evade something that doesn't exist.
Actually, you are. Most viruses inherently evade most potential antibodies.
But less likely could include a likelihood of zero.
But this is a great example of the kind of objections you raise - so pedantic that they're not worth fighting.
It's easier to agree with your simplifications, than to fight over every god-damned little point, when the key
issue is what can/should be done.
At this point, the answer is probably nothing. Let the shit run its course. It's weakening (as is the natural cycle) and interventions have probably already caused more damage than the virus would have (at least in terms of deaths - there are subtle changes I suspect the virus has introduced which may be worse).
