4 ms·

Something that seems not to be considered by many observers is that if a disease is not eliminated, it will continuously either claim lives or reduce efficiency

Something that seems not to be considered by many observers is that if a disease is not eliminated, it will continuously either claim lives or reduce efficiency (which claims lives).

luckylion 6y ago
Is there reasonable hope for a virus like this to be completely eliminated? I figure if it's in that sweet spot of contagiousness, incubation time and mortality, it's hard to eradicate completely. And unless it's eradicated completely, we'll absolutely have to live with reduced efficiency in hyper-alert testing of anyone with symptoms, unless we find that it ceases to be a serious problem once humans have had contact with it.
- leereeves 6y ago
  It probably depends on how long acquired immunity lasts, which we don't know yet. People remain immune to some diseases, like measles, for a lifetime after surviving the disease or being vaccinated. Immunity to other diseases, like influenza, disappears quickly (even immunity to the same strain lasts less than a year).[1] If COVID-19 is in the latter category, it will be difficult to control and we'll probably have to learn to live with it, as we have learned to live with the flu causing hundreds of thousands of deaths each year worldwide. 1: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/04/how-long-do-vaccines-last-surprising-answers-may-help-protect-people-longer# https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/04/how-long-do-vaccines...
  - drapred7 6y ago
    That likely depends on how effective we are at eliminating it in the coming months. I doubt it will become endemic in Korea or Singapore. I wonder if even influenza could be erraticated in the coming years with mass testing and contact tracing. The lockdowns ended flu season early this year.
    - leereeves 6y ago
      We'd have to eliminate it worldwide, or it would travel from country to country like the flu does. In particular, from Mexico. There's too much travel between the US and Mexico to prevent it from crossing the border, and there are 50,000 confirmed cases in Mexico already, with roughly 2000 more being found every day.
      - rswail 6y ago
        Given the relative number of cases, Mexico should be stopping travel from the US, not the other way around.
      - drapred7 6y ago
        Reducing travel from Mexico has been a popular position in the Us for decades.
  - lbeltrame 6y ago
    Let's not discount pharmacological options. HIV doesn't have a vaccine, yet it can be fought with a proper (admittedly very complex) drug regime. The same can be probably done for SARS-CoV-2, although we'll have to wait for specific drugs to reach better efficiency. And I add, we don't need to make this virus disappear (it would be better, but even with a very efficient vaccine it is unlikely). If we can prevent hospitalizations (and possibly deaths), we can likely live with it like we did with many other pathogens.
- drapred7 6y ago
  Bubonic plague, tuberculosis and polio still exist outside the West, but they don't cause much inefficiency here. I doubt doing some ongoing testing for SARS now that it's been mostly eliminated in Asia will permanently cripple Asia's economies. The inefficiencies of continued outbreaks on less well organized nations are harder to predict but possibly much larger.
- Normal_gaussian 6y ago
  I'm not qualified to answer that; but as a layman I share your concern. From lay reading it seems that the large organisations were hoping that situations like this could be arrested at source or in the early stages. To double down on my earlier comment; the inefficiencies the disease cause are not strictly the testing etc. Look at the regular flu [1] [2] it has been "measured" as costing economies some pretty significant sums every year ($87bn USA, £1.35bn UK, different standards used); of course this could be said to pale against the size of these leading economies [3] landing at less than 1%. An annual flu tax is certianly not ideal. Additional diseases will have different "tax rates", and I have no idea to the way in which they will interact. You have to bear in mind that a tax rate is a form of inhibitive cost, and the burden of disease could be holding other economies back. [1] https://www.cdcfoundation.org/pr/flu-costs-United-States-87-billion-annually https://www.cdcfoundation.org/pr/flu-costs-United-States-87-... [2] https://www.hrmagazine.co.uk/article-details/flu-costs-the-british-economy-1-35-billion https://www.hrmagazine.co.uk/article-details/flu-costs-the-b... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi...
- pmiller2 6y ago
  I'm not sure the person you're responding to was using it in this sense, but the word "eliminate," in epidemiological terms, means to get the virus under control such that outbreaks are reduced in scope to local clusters that can be dealt with using methods like contact tracing. In that sense, yes, we absolutely can, and should, eliminate this virus.
  - Normal_gaussian 6y ago
    You're right - I was using it in a totality sense. While I know enough to know it won't get there the point was to draw the extreme and highlight that deaths aren't the only cost on the scale from here to there.
- xapata 6y ago
  Unlikely, as it can be passed to animals, then mutate and return to humans. The flu vaccine is designed and distributed annually based on the most likely strains. My guess is a similar pattern for strains of coronavirus.
watwut 6y ago
We are in better position then before tho. We have cheaper tests now and we can manufacture them more quickly. The way people get infected is also clearer now and we can have partial limitations on economy more effectively. Pretty soon, we can be in position to test, say, 50% of workers in factory every week and having asymptotic sick at home. People got used to wearing masks in public indoor spaces and to sanitizing their hands upon entering stores. Overall, we are in much better position to make selective limitations, opening and closing depending on what numbers are. Countries that locked down soon are opening now with small numbers of infections - they are able to do tracing and test all contacts of any new infection. We are getting better at controlling the pandemic.
pjc50 6y ago
Yes, people are really underestimating the effects of the virus that aren't fatal. While I know nobody that's died from it I know several who've been off sick for weeks.
- throwaway743 6y ago
  To add, it's a bit concerning seeing that the military has put a ban on enlisting those who have tested positive, were hospitalized, and recovered without the ability to be waivered. (I mentioned this in another post about a week ago when it was reported). Then just a few days ago, it was reported that ~13 sailors who were positive, recovered, isolated, then tested negative two times in a row, retested positive and some were showing symptoms again. It could be due to inaccuracies in testing, but given that some showed symptoms again and tested positive, it seems possible that they either didn't develop an immunity and caught it again, or this could be a chronic illness. The reason for banning enlistees being a vague "as a precaution", is a little suspicious. Who knows though. Regardless, it's a something to keep an eye on as it develops.
  - pjc50 6y ago
    > just a few days ago, it was reported that ~13 sailors who were positive, recovered, isolated, then tested negative two times in a row, retested positive and some were showing symptoms again. It's unfortunate that the guy who highlighted the problems on the Roosevelt was also fired.
- lbeltrame 6y ago
  The literature has a lot of case reports, but nothing substantial last time I checked. This makes a non-sensationalistic look at those issues (and more importantly, how much they occur) difficult.

Something that seems not to be considered by many observers is that if a disease is not eliminated, it will continuously either claim lives or reduce efficiency (which claims lives).

luckylion 6y ago

Is there reasonable hope for a virus like this to be completely eliminated? I figure if it's in that sweet spot of contagiousness, incubation time and mortality, it's hard to eradicate completely. And unless it's eradicated completely, we'll absolutely have to live with reduced efficiency in hyper-alert testing of anyone with symptoms, unless we find that it ceases to be a serious problem once humans have had contact with it.

leereeves 6y ago
It probably depends on how long acquired immunity lasts, which we don't know yet. People remain immune to some diseases, like measles, for a lifetime after surviving the disease or being vaccinated. Immunity to other diseases, like influenza, disappears quickly (even immunity to the same strain lasts less than a year).[1] If COVID-19 is in the latter category, it will be difficult to control and we'll probably have to learn to live with it, as we have learned to live with the flu causing hundreds of thousands of deaths each year worldwide. 1: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/04/how-long-do-vaccines-last-surprising-answers-may-help-protect-people-longer# https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/04/how-long-do-vaccines...
- drapred7 6y ago
  That likely depends on how effective we are at eliminating it in the coming months. I doubt it will become endemic in Korea or Singapore. I wonder if even influenza could be erraticated in the coming years with mass testing and contact tracing. The lockdowns ended flu season early this year.
  - leereeves 6y ago
    We'd have to eliminate it worldwide, or it would travel from country to country like the flu does. In particular, from Mexico. There's too much travel between the US and Mexico to prevent it from crossing the border, and there are 50,000 confirmed cases in Mexico already, with roughly 2000 more being found every day.
    - rswail 6y ago
      Given the relative number of cases, Mexico should be stopping travel from the US, not the other way around.
    - drapred7 6y ago
      Reducing travel from Mexico has been a popular position in the Us for decades.
- lbeltrame 6y ago
  Let's not discount pharmacological options. HIV doesn't have a vaccine, yet it can be fought with a proper (admittedly very complex) drug regime. The same can be probably done for SARS-CoV-2, although we'll have to wait for specific drugs to reach better efficiency. And I add, we don't need to make this virus disappear (it would be better, but even with a very efficient vaccine it is unlikely). If we can prevent hospitalizations (and possibly deaths), we can likely live with it like we did with many other pathogens.
drapred7 6y ago
Bubonic plague, tuberculosis and polio still exist outside the West, but they don't cause much inefficiency here. I doubt doing some ongoing testing for SARS now that it's been mostly eliminated in Asia will permanently cripple Asia's economies. The inefficiencies of continued outbreaks on less well organized nations are harder to predict but possibly much larger.
Normal_gaussian 6y ago
I'm not qualified to answer that; but as a layman I share your concern. From lay reading it seems that the large organisations were hoping that situations like this could be arrested at source or in the early stages. To double down on my earlier comment; the inefficiencies the disease cause are not strictly the testing etc. Look at the regular flu [1] [2] it has been "measured" as costing economies some pretty significant sums every year ($87bn USA, £1.35bn UK, different standards used); of course this could be said to pale against the size of these leading economies [3] landing at less than 1%. An annual flu tax is certianly not ideal. Additional diseases will have different "tax rates", and I have no idea to the way in which they will interact. You have to bear in mind that a tax rate is a form of inhibitive cost, and the burden of disease could be holding other economies back. [1] https://www.cdcfoundation.org/pr/flu-costs-United-States-87-billion-annually https://www.cdcfoundation.org/pr/flu-costs-United-States-87-... [2] https://www.hrmagazine.co.uk/article-details/flu-costs-the-british-economy-1-35-billion https://www.hrmagazine.co.uk/article-details/flu-costs-the-b... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi...
pmiller2 6y ago
I'm not sure the person you're responding to was using it in this sense, but the word "eliminate," in epidemiological terms, means to get the virus under control such that outbreaks are reduced in scope to local clusters that can be dealt with using methods like contact tracing. In that sense, yes, we absolutely can, and should, eliminate this virus.
- Normal_gaussian 6y ago
  You're right - I was using it in a totality sense. While I know enough to know it won't get there the point was to draw the extreme and highlight that deaths aren't the only cost on the scale from here to there.
xapata 6y ago
Unlikely, as it can be passed to animals, then mutate and return to humans. The flu vaccine is designed and distributed annually based on the most likely strains. My guess is a similar pattern for strains of coronavirus.

watwut 6y ago

We are in better position then before tho. We have cheaper tests now and we can manufacture them more quickly. The way people get infected is also clearer now and we can have partial limitations on economy more effectively. Pretty soon, we can be in position to test, say, 50% of workers in factory every week and having asymptotic sick at home. People got used to wearing masks in public indoor spaces and to sanitizing their hands upon entering stores. Overall, we are in much better position to make selective limitations, opening and closing depending on what numbers are. Countries that locked down soon are opening now with small numbers of infections - they are able to do tracing and test all contacts of any new infection. We are getting better at controlling the pandemic.

pjc50 6y ago

Yes, people are really underestimating the effects of the virus that aren't fatal. While I know nobody that's died from it I know several who've been off sick for weeks.

throwaway743 6y ago
To add, it's a bit concerning seeing that the military has put a ban on enlisting those who have tested positive, were hospitalized, and recovered without the ability to be waivered. (I mentioned this in another post about a week ago when it was reported). Then just a few days ago, it was reported that ~13 sailors who were positive, recovered, isolated, then tested negative two times in a row, retested positive and some were showing symptoms again. It could be due to inaccuracies in testing, but given that some showed symptoms again and tested positive, it seems possible that they either didn't develop an immunity and caught it again, or this could be a chronic illness. The reason for banning enlistees being a vague "as a precaution", is a little suspicious. Who knows though. Regardless, it's a something to keep an eye on as it develops.
- pjc50 6y ago
  > just a few days ago, it was reported that ~13 sailors who were positive, recovered, isolated, then tested negative two times in a row, retested positive and some were showing symptoms again. It's unfortunate that the guy who highlighted the problems on the Roosevelt was also fired.
lbeltrame 6y ago
The literature has a lot of case reports, but nothing substantial last time I checked. This makes a non-sensationalistic look at those issues (and more importantly, how much they occur) difficult.