3 ms·

People keep saying so, but I have yet to see compelling evidence. Can you provide some? For what it's worth, I think eradicating something world-wide that has

by patrec 7y ago

People keep saying so, but I have yet to see compelling evidence. Can you provide some? For what it's worth, I think eradicating something world-wide that has already spread widely beyond the relatively competent and affluent countries is going to be tough. But personally, I'd much rather see it eradicated in just competent and affluent countries than not at all.

arcticbull 7y ago
> But personally, I'd much rather see it eradicated in just competent and affluent countries than not at all. With something this infectious all it takes is one visitor from one of the have-not countries to put the have-country into total lockdown. That's not a realistic plan moving forward either.
- patrec 7y ago
  Two points: 1. People don't just start to magically teleport around if you restrict their travel. I know that defies common wisdom, which is presumably why the UK and others kept (keep?) importing people from disease Epicentres like Milan or Teheran en-masse right up the point of total lockdown. But if, for example, Japan, the UK or Australia decide they don't want Iranians to visit their shores for a while, at least not without on the spot testing, automatic two week quarantine or other heavy restrictions: what is the would be Iranian mass-infector going to do about it? And is greatly restricting travel from incompetent countries really going to wreck your nation? 2. Vaccines are cheap. If it's possible to create a vaccine that is sufficiently safe and covers enough strains of the virus, you can just vaccinate enough of your population that the disease will, effectively, no longer be very infectious. Then you can intelligently spend some comparatively trifling sums to make such vaccination programs available to countries that genuinely can't afford them.

3 ms·

People keep saying so, but I have yet to see compelling evidence. Can you provide some? For what it's worth, I think eradicating something world-wide that has

by patrec 7y ago

arcticbull 7y ago
> But personally, I'd much rather see it eradicated in just competent and affluent countries than not at all. With something this infectious all it takes is one visitor from one of the have-not countries to put the have-country into total lockdown. That's not a realistic plan moving forward either.
- patrec 7y ago
  Two points: 1. People don't just start to magically teleport around if you restrict their travel. I know that defies common wisdom, which is presumably why the UK and others kept (keep?) importing people from disease Epicentres like Milan or Teheran en-masse right up the point of total lockdown. But if, for example, Japan, the UK or Australia decide they don't want Iranians to visit their shores for a while, at least not without on the spot testing, automatic two week quarantine or other heavy restrictions: what is the would be Iranian mass-infector going to do about it? And is greatly restricting travel from incompetent countries really going to wreck your nation? 2. Vaccines are cheap. If it's possible to create a vaccine that is sufficiently safe and covers enough strains of the virus, you can just vaccinate enough of your population that the disease will, effectively, no longer be very infectious. Then you can intelligently spend some comparatively trifling sums to make such vaccination programs available to countries that genuinely can't afford them.