6 ms·

I actually chose stomp over eradicate because I wanted to imply that there would still be some left but that it would be a manageable amount. That's interesting

• treis 6y ago
  We didn't snuff out hot spots. The virus was/is still in NYC and Washington. No matter how long we locked down for it would still be there waiting to emerge after the lock down ended. That was the problem with the lockdown. It was touted as a solution when its just a delaying tactic. Schools are the same. Keeping them closed is just a delaying tactic. And like the lockdown, unless we delay until a vaccine then it's a pointless delay.
  • oramit 6y ago
    I don't remember lockdowns being touted as a solution. I always understood it as a delaying tactic so things could be brought back under some control. Flatten the curve and all that. NYC didn't eliminate the virus but they've kept their curve flat so it's not getting out of control again. This delaying tactic is all we have for right now, its likely saved thousands of lives, and that's not nothing. What is your plan for the next stage?
    • treis 6y ago
      It's not clear what the impact of the lockdowns are. You say that they've saved thousands, but in a lot of places we are back to where we were before the lockdown. Or even doing worse. I suspect that the lockdowns delayed deaths, but in most places will not have substantially reduced them. The plan for the next stage is all of the public health measures that other countries have used to contain it. Masks, hygiene, social distancing, contact tracing, etc. At this point we know how to stop it. Compliance is not there and every day that passes it goes down.
    • quantified 6y ago
      You’re right, that was all we could arrive at at the time. We don’t have the plan that says test everyone once a week, support the folks who need to quarantine as a result, and really fence this off for 3 months til it’s down to little pockets. We don’t have a plan that says follow the regions, the counties, the communities, and work hardest on suppressing it where it was and where it was heading. We did choose a bad option, now people who’ve been locked down are exhausted and ornery while the ones who didn’t are finally getting the idea. And for some reason “no shirt no shoes no service” is well understood, no blowing secondhand smoke is accepted all over, but the right to infect is held as culturally important.
  • bmitc 6y ago
    What are you suggesting is a delaying tactic? What is the thing being delayed?
    • NotSammyHagar 6y ago
      The delaying was so that we 'delayed' or avoided overfilling the hospitals and causing a lot of secondary death and damage. Delay people getting sick, reduce the max. Spread the infections out over time.
      • bmitc 6y ago
        I don't think that's necessarily what the person I replied to is talking about, given their language, which is why I asked.
• marcell 6y ago
  Well if you take eradication off the table, then you have to assume the entire susceptible population will eventually get the virus. So I guess, I don't see the benefit of "stomping" the virus down to some small level. It was at a very small level back in February, and then grew. If we get it back down to that small level, it will just grow again. There's no benefit to locking down for 3 months to have it grow in July instead of March. A controlled burn approach makes a lot more sense, but that is not the same as "stomping" the virus.
  • wongarsu 6y ago
    If you stomp it down enough then a few relatively light measures (masks, some distancing, some contact tracing) are enough to keep it down. That's what's happening in Europe right now. Sure, eventually everyone would be infected at least once given infinite time. But that doesn't matter, what matters is how many people get infected before a vaccine is developed and widely deployed.
  • MengerSponge 6y ago
    Effective testing and contact tracing is sufficient to dramatically reduce the spread of the virus. If we're a year away from a vaccine or treatment, then we don't need to burn down society to stop it this month. But if we act in a way that causes millions of infections, we're inflicting unnecessary harm on thousands. We've also learned more about how to keep people alive and how to slow the spread of the virus since February, so it's useful to postpone that exponential growth as long as possible.
  • fanimalmanimal 6y ago
    If you keep the infection rate low enough you can keep the hospitals from being over capacity and also delay infections until after a vaccine is developed and administered, thus preventing the infection. Both of these states would have the benefit of reducing the total number of deaths. When the lockdown talk started, I thought that was the point.
  • sdenton4 6y ago
    Time does wonders. We have much better knowledge of treatment options than we had in March, which makes a real difference in lives lost. And eventually, we might (might!) get vaccines. So the longer the curve is flat, the more time we have to learn and craft better interventions. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/science/coronavirus-drugs-treatments.html?searchResultPosition=2 https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/science/coronavirus...
• Izkata 6y ago
  > because I wanted to imply that there would still be some left but that it would be a manageable amount. Go for "decimated" next time, rare to see it used right ;)
  • war1025 6y ago
    Decimate means you kill 1 out of every 10. It's probable that we decimated the virus and more. It's just that doesn't really make a difference.
    • brnt 6y ago
      Decimate means leaving 1 out of 10 alive. A 90% reduction.
      • edflsafoiewq 6y ago
        > Decimation was a form of Roman military discipline in which every tenth man in a group was executed by members of his cohort. ... The word decimation is derived from Latin meaning "removal of a tenth".
      • MagnumOpus 6y ago
        No it doesn’t. Look it up.
  • pbz 6y ago
    As in 10% reduction?
• schoolornot 6y ago
  JFK international airport is a 20 minute ride from the heart of Manhattan and we have a "transportation security agency" that can't find physical contraband in a suitcase much less be expected to be gatekeepers of health for the nation. Suppose we drastically lower transmission. How many times should NYC and the surrounding areas be locked down because someone flew in from a country with loose contagion protocols? Besides waiting for a vaccine and mass infections of those unwilling or unable to stay at home, I haven't seen a concrete proposal from anyone on what we should have or should be doing next.
  • 908087 6y ago
    > How many times should NYC and the surrounding areas be locked down because someone flew in from a country with loose contagion protocols? A country like Texas or Florida?
  • yongjik 6y ago
    Logistically, it's easier to force everyone arriving into mandatory two-week quarantine, than finding a contraband whatever hidden in a sea of suitcases. What's lacking is political willpower.
    • strken 6y ago
      Australia does this. The border is somewhat porous, but it's worth mentioning that Australia is worrying about hundreds of cases right now.
  • nickserv 6y ago
    Close the border, it's as simple as that. All countries that were able to lower infections did this. In Europe this was done even between neighboring countries both part of Shengen.
    • dghughes 6y ago
      Here in Canada it was even done between provinces. My region has a bubble of four small provinces with few cases. But even so to travel across a provincial border in the bubble you will need proof of residency.