3 ms·
> As soon as the author started talking about eradication, he left the scientific concensus. Something i have read is that there is a split between epidemiolog
by twic 7y ago
> As soon as the author started talking about eradication, he left the scientific concensus.
Something i have read is that there is a split between epidemiologists and public health experts. Epidemiologists accept that we can't eradicate, and so have to manage the outbreak. Public health experts still think in terms of eradication.
My understanding is that this is an inertia thing. Public health experts have spent decades focused on eradicating diseases, so that's the only way they can think. Meanwhile, epidemiologists only study diseases that have escaped containment, so that's the only way they can think!
- LatteLazy 7y agoThanks, that makes sense, and that's exactly what I felt the author was stuck on. They've spent decades trying to eradicate diseases (TB and HIV), so now they want to pursue another eradication program. It's attractive, I get why. But it's not applicable to a disease we can't cure and one with rapid gestation transmission. It's somewhat ironic that this expert's own expertise is what stops him from listening to the real experts...