> But it, too, has "flattened the curve" of infections. It‘s sad that the article uses the term in such a sloppy way. NZ was aiming for containment and eradica

> But it, too, has "flattened the curve" of infections. It‘s sad that the article uses the term in such a sloppy way. NZ was aiming for containment and eradication from the beginning. There are three common strategies to fight the Corona virus: „Herd immunity“ - Naturally letting it run out of steam. The problem is that your health system might get overwhelmed. Therefore „flatten the curve“. Advantages: new infections imported from abroad don’t matter; cost of the counter measures to society is minimized. Disadvantage: virus damage is maximized. Sweden is the classic example. GB, NYC probably. „Dancing“ - try to keep the numbers low but live with fact that you cannot eradicate the virus. If necessary bring the cases down by using the „hammer“ first. Advantage: imported cases can be contained; possibly time will bring better treatment/vaccination. Disadvantage: expensive measures for indefinite time. JP, HK Eradication - Advantage: back to normal if achieved. Disadvantage: not robust against imported cases. Possibly very expensive/unachievable. NZ As one can imagine, changing from one strategy to another at first gives you the disadvantages without the advantages.