3 ms·

I'm not an expert by any means but here is what I've picked up. We essentially have 3 ways out of this: - It becomes endemic, enough people have had it that it

I'm not an expert by any means but here is what I've picked up. We essentially have 3 ways out of this: - It becomes endemic, enough people have had it that it's no longer a huge problem; so long as you ignore the hundreds of thousands who died on the way there. - We develop and test a vaccine. Great except pressing pause on the entire world for a year or more is a challenge. - We somehow manage to contain the spread and eliminate it. Some counties seem to have had some success with this technique but we need all countries to do it, at massive economic and social cost. We don't seem to be holding a particularly attractive hand at the moment.

SkyBelow 7y ago
There is an option 2b. We develop a vaccine and roll it out without as much testing, at least to some people. It has higher risks of something being wrong with the vaccine, but at the same time our existing process only tests the vaccine for a relatively short period of time relative to human lifespan, and one can say it is already a risky move. In this case the risk of reducing testing and starting to roll out the vaccine sooner may be justified.
- VBprogrammer 7y ago
  True, but to be honest I think a year is probably pushing the boundaries of what is possible. We then need a massive immunisation project to get 60% or more of all of the world's populations to a good level of immunity. Even rushing the testing phase doesn't give me much hope that that will be in place by this time next year. I guess there is a 2.c where we find an existing drug which is mass manufactured and, at least, makes the worst cases more easily managed.