6 ms·

Not to mention, the high R0 of this virus means the threshold for herd immunity is unrealistically high. Plus, countries that are trying to delay transmission w

Not to mention, the high R0 of this virus means the threshold for herd immunity is unrealistically high. Plus, countries that are trying to delay transmission will also eventually get herd immunity , most probably with the help of a vaccine.

sgt101 7y ago
I think people believe that a vaccine is 18 mths away. Certainly it seems implausible that 100's of millions of doses of a new vaccine can be manufactured within a few months. The models and history that I have seen (ie. the 1918 flu) indicate that there will be another bump of infection after quarantine. I expect compliance with social distancing will be reduced in the next wave because people will be under economic pressure and also will have lost focus on the issue. In some places there may be events that mitigate against distancing - for example the presidential elections in the USA. I think that producing a plan that is predicated on something (production of a vaccine to any scale in less that 6mths) that is very unlikely to happen is not the best approach. Here is a discussion including expert comments : https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/15/when-will-a-coronavirus-vaccine-be-ready-human-trials-global-immunisation https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/15/when-will-a-co...
- TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
  The most effective strategy would be wave isolation. The virus cannot be contained except by clean-room quarantine for everyone, which is clearly impractical. So the next best option is to spread the peak by alternate phases of more or less strict social distancing. The virus will still spread, most people will still get it, but the health care system isn't swamped, so resources remain to treat the elderly and vulnerable. At the end of the season, most people have immunity - assuming it's possible - and you've limited the total number of deaths. The economic cost is huge, but so is the economic cost of forcing your health care system to collapse. It's possibly not obvious yet, but the economics of this are going to be ruinous whatever happens. So it would be wise to create some mitigation for that, and suspend the usual market-eats-everything rules.
  - luckylion 7y ago
    > So the next best option is to spread the peak by alternate phases of more or less strict social distancing. Has this been done before anywhere on a large scale? How is it done, do they just say "it's safe, you can go back to work now wink wink", do they encourage virus parties like new-age-parents? Are they going to convince the public that everyone should get infected in their allotted wave for the common good? Will they go door to door and just shoot in a blast of viruses? Won't people catch on if they alternate between strict and lessened isolation rules and figure "they're trying to trick me into getting infected, I'm not going back to working at the office, thanks"? I absolutely get the idea, but it's not like you're dealing with a population that has it's memory reset every morning and just acts on the information available today.
    - sgt101 7y ago
      >I absolutely get the idea, but it's not like you're dealing with a population that has it's memory reset every morning and just acts on the information available today. Ahhh... Errm... I am terribly afraid that you can see that happening on Twitter every day.
      - luckylion 7y ago
        I don't know, can you? I believe what you see on Twitter is tribalism in it's purest and decentralized form. It's many smaller and larger tribes clashing all the time, because of how it's set up. People don't forget what $memberOfTheirTribe did or said last week, they fall in line because it's their tribe vs that other tribe, and consistence or purity or adherence to tribal values are less important than winning the battle.

sgt101 7y ago

I think people believe that a vaccine is 18 mths away. Certainly it seems implausible that 100's of millions of doses of a new vaccine can be manufactured within a few months. The models and history that I have seen (ie. the 1918 flu) indicate that there will be another bump of infection after quarantine. I expect compliance with social distancing will be reduced in the next wave because people will be under economic pressure and also will have lost focus on the issue. In some places there may be events that mitigate against distancing - for example the presidential elections in the USA. I think that producing a plan that is predicated on something (production of a vaccine to any scale in less that 6mths) that is very unlikely to happen is not the best approach. Here is a discussion including expert comments : https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/15/when-will-a-coronavirus-vaccine-be-ready-human-trials-global-immunisation https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/15/when-will-a-co...

TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
The most effective strategy would be wave isolation. The virus cannot be contained except by clean-room quarantine for everyone, which is clearly impractical. So the next best option is to spread the peak by alternate phases of more or less strict social distancing. The virus will still spread, most people will still get it, but the health care system isn't swamped, so resources remain to treat the elderly and vulnerable. At the end of the season, most people have immunity - assuming it's possible - and you've limited the total number of deaths. The economic cost is huge, but so is the economic cost of forcing your health care system to collapse. It's possibly not obvious yet, but the economics of this are going to be ruinous whatever happens. So it would be wise to create some mitigation for that, and suspend the usual market-eats-everything rules.
- luckylion 7y ago
  > So the next best option is to spread the peak by alternate phases of more or less strict social distancing. Has this been done before anywhere on a large scale? How is it done, do they just say "it's safe, you can go back to work now wink wink", do they encourage virus parties like new-age-parents? Are they going to convince the public that everyone should get infected in their allotted wave for the common good? Will they go door to door and just shoot in a blast of viruses? Won't people catch on if they alternate between strict and lessened isolation rules and figure "they're trying to trick me into getting infected, I'm not going back to working at the office, thanks"? I absolutely get the idea, but it's not like you're dealing with a population that has it's memory reset every morning and just acts on the information available today.
  - sgt101 7y ago
    >I absolutely get the idea, but it's not like you're dealing with a population that has it's memory reset every morning and just acts on the information available today. Ahhh... Errm... I am terribly afraid that you can see that happening on Twitter every day.
    - luckylion 7y ago
      I don't know, can you? I believe what you see on Twitter is tribalism in it's purest and decentralized form. It's many smaller and larger tribes clashing all the time, because of how it's set up. People don't forget what $memberOfTheirTribe did or said last week, they fall in line because it's their tribe vs that other tribe, and consistence or purity or adherence to tribal values are less important than winning the battle.