4 ms·

when people outside of vietnam who are infected travel there, they will have to shut everything down again, whereas Sweden will have herd immunity faster than a

when people outside of vietnam who are infected travel there, they will have to shut everything down again, whereas Sweden will have herd immunity faster than any other country

pmiller2 6y ago
Bold of you to think there will be any such thing as lasting herd immunity via natural infection, when no other human coronavirus induces such immunity.
- username90 6y ago
  There are corona viruses spreading among humans all the time, a significant fraction of "common colds" are corona. Most doesn't get sick since we already have herd immunity against them.
- yeetman21 6y ago
  if there is so such thing as immunity then waiting for the vaccine is pointless no? ...so what is the lockdown for again?
  - flukus 6y ago
    > if there is so such thing as immunity then waiting for the vaccine is pointless no? The keyword there is lasting, we know immunity exists we just don't know for how long. If a vaccine could be distributed to enough people in a short enough time frame (we're talking billions and months) it could still wipe out the virus. But if that can't be done then mandatory vaccines for travelers could work. > ...so what is the lockdown for again? To keep the number of infections manageable and/or eradicate it entirely, it was never about stalling time for a vaccine.
    - yeetman21 6y ago
      to keep the numbers manageable? all the hospitals are empty, the field hospitals they built for this have had 80 total patients out of the expected 10 million+ the whole purpose of "flattening the curve" was so that everyone one would get the virus but at different times, if no-one is getting it now, then that just means everyone will get it later
- elboulangero 6y ago
  > no other human coronavirus induces such immunity Wrong, with SARS-CoV-1 "immunity lasted between three to six years" [1] [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20200424144554/https://newsnetwork.mayoclinic.org/discussion/crucial-test-to-identify-those-who-have-recovered-from-covid-19-and-have-active-immunity/ https://web.archive.org/web/20200424144554/https://newsnetwo...
yongjik 6y ago
> when people outside of vietnam who are infected travel there, they will be tested, quarantined for two weeks, tested again, and then only if they test negative they will be able to interact with the rest of Vietnam. It's a hundred times easier than controlling a disease running wild in the population.
- sokoloff 6y ago
  This protocol will likely be enough to destroy the tourism industry in smaller countries who implement it.
- elboulangero 6y ago
  > they will be tested, quarantined for two weeks, tested again With this scenario you get no tourists and no business trip. Can you really call that re-opening? For how long such measures can last?
  - yongjik 6y ago
    You think there will be tourism and business trip into Sweden when their strategy is explicitly "you will get the virus anyway"? In the end, the Vietnamese will have more freedom than the Swedish. When countries that have put the virus under control agree to reopen borders against each other, Sweden will be left out.
    - elboulangero 6y ago
      > You think there will be tourism and business trip into Sweden when their strategy is explicitly "you will get the virus anyway"? You don't seem to understand that the more a population builds up immunity, and the less the virus can circulate in this population. So Sweden might end up being the place where you're the less likely to get the virus, if any. Plus, for people under 65 and no pre-existing conditions, the risk from Covid-19 is negligible. Peaople under 65 represents a lot of tourists and business people already. I personally would go to Sweden without the slightest worry, but that's just me. In the end everybody will assess the risk by themselves, like grown-ups. > In the end, the Vietnamese will have more freedom than the Swedish Freedom within the country? Freedom to travel in other countries? Freedom to open their border and welcome foreigners? What do you mean exactly? As long as the virus circulates in the world, and the population of a country was never exposed to it, then the epidemic is just waiting to happen. I don't see how a country like VN which has presumably not build up immunity at all can be in a good position. If the virus disappears completely from the surface of the planet, then that's great news for VN. They will have managed to keep the virus out, and to safely re-open the borders. A great success. But if the virus doesn't disappear, and lingers around for years, Vietnam will have to maintain draconian measures at the borders for a very long time. This will have a cost, and yes it hurts the economy, you can't deny that. > When countries that have put the virus under control agree to reopen borders against each other I don't know how you will define "put the virus under control". Good luck with that. And good luck handling all the travelers with two nationalities and two passports.
jariel 6y ago
Except we don't know that and nobody is tracking it very well. It's an enormously risky approach. I think it will work out 'ok' for Sweden only because COVID isn't that-that bad, but if death rates were a little higher and R0 a bit higher it could have been a disaster. Specifically: " They do not need to be coerced into a lockdown because they can be trusted to act properly." This to me is ridiculous - it's not 'trust' that matters, but policy: if restaurants are open and many people go there ... well, that's hugely different from 'restaurants closed'. Same thing for almost everything else. How can you 'trust' people to do the right thing whey nobody knows what the right thing is? Even certain behaviors like hand-washing and masks need to be propagandized and 'nudged' in order for people to take them seriously. It may very well be that 'soft shut-down' in the long run is the right balance ... but I'd be wary to claim a big win on this if it was mostly a guess. Taiwan and Korea are clearly the winners, in the West I suggest it's Germany.
- ferzul 6y ago
  why germany? there seems to be plenty of states doing better than germany. it seems germany gets points just for having a long serving trusted leader at the helm
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    I have to say, I would much rather have a quantum chemist leading the US now than someone who managed to bankrupt a casino.
  - jariel 6y ago
    Because Germany has 1/4 the deaths per capita than other Western states and considerably more testing. Spain has 550 deaths per million, Germany has 90. Most of the rest are in between. UK, Spain, France, Italy, Belgium, Switzerland, Netherlands etc. - not so good at all, though Switzerland did a good job of getting things under control after a breakout. E. Europe has fared well, but there are lower testing and some questionable governance so well have to take a deeper look. Sweden's position is untenable and possibly unethical given the unknowns, it was a huge gamble.

when people outside of vietnam who are infected travel there, they will have to shut everything down again, whereas Sweden will have herd immunity faster than any other country

pmiller2 6y ago

Bold of you to think there will be any such thing as lasting herd immunity via natural infection, when no other human coronavirus induces such immunity.

username90 6y ago
There are corona viruses spreading among humans all the time, a significant fraction of "common colds" are corona. Most doesn't get sick since we already have herd immunity against them.
yeetman21 6y ago
if there is so such thing as immunity then waiting for the vaccine is pointless no? ...so what is the lockdown for again?
- flukus 6y ago
  > if there is so such thing as immunity then waiting for the vaccine is pointless no? The keyword there is lasting, we know immunity exists we just don't know for how long. If a vaccine could be distributed to enough people in a short enough time frame (we're talking billions and months) it could still wipe out the virus. But if that can't be done then mandatory vaccines for travelers could work. > ...so what is the lockdown for again? To keep the number of infections manageable and/or eradicate it entirely, it was never about stalling time for a vaccine.
  - yeetman21 6y ago
    to keep the numbers manageable? all the hospitals are empty, the field hospitals they built for this have had 80 total patients out of the expected 10 million+ the whole purpose of "flattening the curve" was so that everyone one would get the virus but at different times, if no-one is getting it now, then that just means everyone will get it later
elboulangero 6y ago
> no other human coronavirus induces such immunity Wrong, with SARS-CoV-1 "immunity lasted between three to six years" [1] [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20200424144554/https://newsnetwork.mayoclinic.org/discussion/crucial-test-to-identify-those-who-have-recovered-from-covid-19-and-have-active-immunity/ https://web.archive.org/web/20200424144554/https://newsnetwo...

yongjik 6y ago

> when people outside of vietnam who are infected travel there, they will be tested, quarantined for two weeks, tested again, and then only if they test negative they will be able to interact with the rest of Vietnam. It's a hundred times easier than controlling a disease running wild in the population.

sokoloff 6y ago
This protocol will likely be enough to destroy the tourism industry in smaller countries who implement it.
elboulangero 6y ago
> they will be tested, quarantined for two weeks, tested again With this scenario you get no tourists and no business trip. Can you really call that re-opening? For how long such measures can last?
- yongjik 6y ago
  You think there will be tourism and business trip into Sweden when their strategy is explicitly "you will get the virus anyway"? In the end, the Vietnamese will have more freedom than the Swedish. When countries that have put the virus under control agree to reopen borders against each other, Sweden will be left out.
  - elboulangero 6y ago
    > You think there will be tourism and business trip into Sweden when their strategy is explicitly "you will get the virus anyway"? You don't seem to understand that the more a population builds up immunity, and the less the virus can circulate in this population. So Sweden might end up being the place where you're the less likely to get the virus, if any. Plus, for people under 65 and no pre-existing conditions, the risk from Covid-19 is negligible. Peaople under 65 represents a lot of tourists and business people already. I personally would go to Sweden without the slightest worry, but that's just me. In the end everybody will assess the risk by themselves, like grown-ups. > In the end, the Vietnamese will have more freedom than the Swedish Freedom within the country? Freedom to travel in other countries? Freedom to open their border and welcome foreigners? What do you mean exactly? As long as the virus circulates in the world, and the population of a country was never exposed to it, then the epidemic is just waiting to happen. I don't see how a country like VN which has presumably not build up immunity at all can be in a good position. If the virus disappears completely from the surface of the planet, then that's great news for VN. They will have managed to keep the virus out, and to safely re-open the borders. A great success. But if the virus doesn't disappear, and lingers around for years, Vietnam will have to maintain draconian measures at the borders for a very long time. This will have a cost, and yes it hurts the economy, you can't deny that. > When countries that have put the virus under control agree to reopen borders against each other I don't know how you will define "put the virus under control". Good luck with that. And good luck handling all the travelers with two nationalities and two passports.

jariel 6y ago

Except we don't know that and nobody is tracking it very well. It's an enormously risky approach. I think it will work out 'ok' for Sweden only because COVID isn't that-that bad, but if death rates were a little higher and R0 a bit higher it could have been a disaster. Specifically: " They do not need to be coerced into a lockdown because they can be trusted to act properly." This to me is ridiculous - it's not 'trust' that matters, but policy: if restaurants are open and many people go there ... well, that's hugely different from 'restaurants closed'. Same thing for almost everything else. How can you 'trust' people to do the right thing whey nobody knows what the right thing is? Even certain behaviors like hand-washing and masks need to be propagandized and 'nudged' in order for people to take them seriously. It may very well be that 'soft shut-down' in the long run is the right balance ... but I'd be wary to claim a big win on this if it was mostly a guess. Taiwan and Korea are clearly the winners, in the West I suggest it's Germany.

ferzul 6y ago
why germany? there seems to be plenty of states doing better than germany. it seems germany gets points just for having a long serving trusted leader at the helm
- pmiller2 6y ago
  I have to say, I would much rather have a quantum chemist leading the US now than someone who managed to bankrupt a casino.
- jariel 6y ago
  Because Germany has 1/4 the deaths per capita than other Western states and considerably more testing. Spain has 550 deaths per million, Germany has 90. Most of the rest are in between. UK, Spain, France, Italy, Belgium, Switzerland, Netherlands etc. - not so good at all, though Switzerland did a good job of getting things under control after a breakout. E. Europe has fared well, but there are lower testing and some questionable governance so well have to take a deeper look. Sweden's position is untenable and possibly unethical given the unknowns, it was a huge gamble.