4 ms·

What is the official end game? Are they hoping that it will be eliminated worldwide, will they continue in this mode indefinitely assuming it won't be, or do th

by sershe 6y ago

What is the official end game? Are they hoping that it will be eliminated worldwide, will they continue in this mode indefinitely assuming it won't be, or do they plan to basically close the borders forever (i.e. anyone who enters has to be strictly quarantined so that the internal contact tracing regime could be relaxed)?

dharmach 6y ago
I think India opted to err on the side of caution. Now where is required or possible, the lockdown can be eased. Opposite strategy would have been far worse.
kumarvvr 6y ago
What is the official end game for all the countries that have lockdown? Have control over new infections and resulting hospitalizations so as to not overwhelm healthcare infrastructure. This is especially required in India, where a large section of the population is uneducated, lack propee facilities and live on daily wages, with little to no savings or assets. As in South Korea, the idea is to ramp up testing so that the country can limp back to normalcy while affected areas are isolated. Absent the strict lockdown, I dia does not have the infrastructure to handle the surge in cases. Hopefully, the population gets immunity and effective medicines are developed to immunize or treat the disease.
- klmadfejno 6y ago
  There's a painful cognitive dissonance that people seem to have about this disease. If your lockdown stops the spread of the disease, your population doesn't get immunity. No amount of infrastructure will allow the population to get immunity without all of the deaths that come with it. Absent effective medicines being developed, which are very unlikely to appear for a long time, countries need to consider that they're choosing somewhere to fall along a spectrum of disease, or disease + poverty. In Star Trek there's the famous unwinnable test, the kobayashi maru, and our hero Kirk says there's no such thing. This is the kind of naive arrogance that is going to amplify an already bad situation. I don't know much about India or its particular situation but rising food prices are going to be a hell of a struggle.
  - moeffju 6y ago
    Aside from the fact that the jury's still out on whether infection actually confers immunity with Covid-19, the options are not just "get everyone infected" vs "eternal lockdown", you can actually suppress the disease to a level where new infections are rare and easily enough traced, or even completely absent.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - klmadfejno 6y ago
      You can do this in a closed system. India is not a closed system. At some point, someone is going to screw up. You can't shut down a city every time that happens.
      - ikiris 6y ago
        Evidence shows otherwise. You're even complaining about it.
        klmadfejno 6y ago
        You're right, that's fair, technically India can do this if it wants to forever isolate itself from the rest of the global economy and into greater levels of poverty than ever before. I had assumed India didn't want to be a closed system.
    - eloff 6y ago
      A lot of Asian countries are indeed showing that this is possible. That's good news! Good luck trying to contain the flu that way. SARS-COV2 seems to be very virulent, but not so virulent like flu or measles that it can't be contained.
      - sershe 6y ago
        Isn't R0 for COVID supposed to be much higher than flu? That was one of the major parts of the arguments for lockdown that I've seen.
malandrew 6y ago
This is the main question I have too. We have a disease that is pretty much guaranteed to be endemic so there will always be the ever present threat of re-importing the disease.
- somewhereoutth 6y ago
  - guaranteed to be endemic in countries that have not taken the necessary public health measures. Consequently there will be very tough restrictions on travellers from those countries. Maybe the world will divide into green and red zones?
  - klmadfejno 6y ago
    It's simply not realistic to keep a highly infectious disease forever out of a country like India (unless the virus just doesn't thrive there for environmental or demographic reasons). What are they going to do, shut down entire cities every time there's a lapse in security? If the world did somehow divide into green and red zones, you would have a worse problem on your hands. The red zones are the wealthier western countries, and are more desirable than the green zones. Good luck trying to maintain global economic relevance when you don't allow immigrants from the wealthiest countries in the world. There's a similar argument to immunity passports. If people need to be immune to the disease to re enter the workforce safely, they will infect themselves with the disease to do so.
    - somewhereoutth 6y ago
      Land borders are of course harder to seal than air - but not impossible. Having to shut down entire cities if there is a breach will make their vigilance that much higher. The green zone will prosper, perhaps those wealthier western countries finding themselves in the red zone will no longer look so desirable. Of course I'm hoping it won't come to this, but it does seem to be the direction we are heading.
      - sershe 6y ago
sameerds 6y ago
I am pretty sure that international travel will stay banned for quite some time more, maybe the end of the year? But the current lockdown is supposed to be "eased" on May 3, and we are already seeing lists of districts with zero new case, where things will become really easy. But at the other extreme, there are "hotspots" where the lockdown will not ease at all for some more time. The lockdown won't just end on May 3. Some states intend to continue the lockdown on their own beyond that. Local shops have been allowed to open already. Some travel will become possible, probably within city limits or state limits. Restaurants and malls are unlikely to be opened any time soon. Everyone is still waiting to see what the official policy is.

by sershe 6y ago

dharmach 6y ago

I think India opted to err on the side of caution. Now where is required or possible, the lockdown can be eased. Opposite strategy would have been far worse.

kumarvvr 6y ago

What is the official end game for all the countries that have lockdown? Have control over new infections and resulting hospitalizations so as to not overwhelm healthcare infrastructure. This is especially required in India, where a large section of the population is uneducated, lack propee facilities and live on daily wages, with little to no savings or assets. As in South Korea, the idea is to ramp up testing so that the country can limp back to normalcy while affected areas are isolated. Absent the strict lockdown, I dia does not have the infrastructure to handle the surge in cases. Hopefully, the population gets immunity and effective medicines are developed to immunize or treat the disease.

klmadfejno 6y ago
There's a painful cognitive dissonance that people seem to have about this disease. If your lockdown stops the spread of the disease, your population doesn't get immunity. No amount of infrastructure will allow the population to get immunity without all of the deaths that come with it. Absent effective medicines being developed, which are very unlikely to appear for a long time, countries need to consider that they're choosing somewhere to fall along a spectrum of disease, or disease + poverty. In Star Trek there's the famous unwinnable test, the kobayashi maru, and our hero Kirk says there's no such thing. This is the kind of naive arrogance that is going to amplify an already bad situation. I don't know much about India or its particular situation but rising food prices are going to be a hell of a struggle.
- moeffju 6y ago
  Aside from the fact that the jury's still out on whether infection actually confers immunity with Covid-19, the options are not just "get everyone infected" vs "eternal lockdown", you can actually suppress the disease to a level where new infections are rare and easily enough traced, or even completely absent.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - klmadfejno 6y ago
    You can do this in a closed system. India is not a closed system. At some point, someone is going to screw up. You can't shut down a city every time that happens.
    - ikiris 6y ago
      Evidence shows otherwise. You're even complaining about it.
      - klmadfejno 6y ago
        You're right, that's fair, technically India can do this if it wants to forever isolate itself from the rest of the global economy and into greater levels of poverty than ever before. I had assumed India didn't want to be a closed system.
  - eloff 6y ago
    A lot of Asian countries are indeed showing that this is possible. That's good news! Good luck trying to contain the flu that way. SARS-COV2 seems to be very virulent, but not so virulent like flu or measles that it can't be contained.
    - sershe 6y ago
      Isn't R0 for COVID supposed to be much higher than flu? That was one of the major parts of the arguments for lockdown that I've seen.

malandrew 6y ago

This is the main question I have too. We have a disease that is pretty much guaranteed to be endemic so there will always be the ever present threat of re-importing the disease.

somewhereoutth 6y ago
- guaranteed to be endemic in countries that have not taken the necessary public health measures. Consequently there will be very tough restrictions on travellers from those countries. Maybe the world will divide into green and red zones?
- klmadfejno 6y ago
  It's simply not realistic to keep a highly infectious disease forever out of a country like India (unless the virus just doesn't thrive there for environmental or demographic reasons). What are they going to do, shut down entire cities every time there's a lapse in security? If the world did somehow divide into green and red zones, you would have a worse problem on your hands. The red zones are the wealthier western countries, and are more desirable than the green zones. Good luck trying to maintain global economic relevance when you don't allow immigrants from the wealthiest countries in the world. There's a similar argument to immunity passports. If people need to be immune to the disease to re enter the workforce safely, they will infect themselves with the disease to do so.
  - somewhereoutth 6y ago
    Land borders are of course harder to seal than air - but not impossible. Having to shut down entire cities if there is a breach will make their vigilance that much higher. The green zone will prosper, perhaps those wealthier western countries finding themselves in the red zone will no longer look so desirable. Of course I'm hoping it won't come to this, but it does seem to be the direction we are heading.
    - sershe 6y ago

sameerds 6y ago

I am pretty sure that international travel will stay banned for quite some time more, maybe the end of the year? But the current lockdown is supposed to be "eased" on May 3, and we are already seeing lists of districts with zero new case, where things will become really easy. But at the other extreme, there are "hotspots" where the lockdown will not ease at all for some more time. The lockdown won't just end on May 3. Some states intend to continue the lockdown on their own beyond that. Local shops have been allowed to open already. Some travel will become possible, probably within city limits or state limits. Restaurants and malls are unlikely to be opened any time soon. Everyone is still waiting to see what the official policy is.