4 ms·

This. SARS-2 is a great spreader but a poor killer. (See: SARS-2’a early course interferon-mediated immunosuppression which probably explains the presence of pr

This. SARS-2 is a great spreader but a poor killer. (See: SARS-2’a early course interferon-mediated immunosuppression which probably explains the presence of pre-symptomatic spread). Worst possible candidate for suppression. And eradication is literally impossible. It just shows how little these people know. It’s a zoonotic virus with abundant animal reservoirs, a high reproduction rate and pre-symptomatic spread. Even with a vaccine it fails the zoonotic requirement. It’s endemic and here to stay. Anyone paying attention has known that from the start. I’ve personally been saying this for months and I’m just a deterministic algorithm operating on fixed-length groups of bits called blocks.

somewhereoutth 6y ago
Eradication has been achieved in New Zealand. Much of East Asia is also close. Before anyone says 'people need to travel' - no they don't. It would be entirely feasible to operate a total human barrier, with goods being quarantined before passing the barrier. True, another spillover from animal reservoirs is likely, either this virus or a similar one. Early warning with prompt response will be needed to control another outbreak. Immediately shutting down all international air travel would be a first action. Imagine if the next spillover is with a virus that is deadly as SARS-1 but as transmissible as SARS-2.
- nradov 6y ago
  Nothing you have described is even remotely feasible. I don't think you understand how the worldwide supply chain works. Plus it is impossible to deal with conflict zones and failed states.
- __blockcipher__ 6y ago
  > Eradication has been achieved in New Zealand. This isn't quite true, but even if I accept that as true, you haven't addressed the problem that this is a zoonotic virus. There are abundant animal reservoirs that will never go away. > Imagine if the next spillover is with a virus that is deadly as SARS-1 but as transmissible as SARS-2. I used to say exactly that, until realizing that a virus as deadly as SARS-1 will never spread as well as SARS-2. Granted, if this hypothetical virus had SARS-1 lethality with SARS-2 incubation period, it would do a lot "better" than SARS-2. Anyway, having thought deeply about this - and I'm sure you will strongly disagree here - even a SARS-1 danger virus with SARS-2 spread, I would be against (a) obviously eradication since I've already discussed why eradication is impossible, but more importantly: (b) I'm against trying to contain highly infectious respiratory viruses period.

somewhereoutth 6y ago

Eradication has been achieved in New Zealand. Much of East Asia is also close. Before anyone says 'people need to travel' - no they don't. It would be entirely feasible to operate a total human barrier, with goods being quarantined before passing the barrier. True, another spillover from animal reservoirs is likely, either this virus or a similar one. Early warning with prompt response will be needed to control another outbreak. Immediately shutting down all international air travel would be a first action. Imagine if the next spillover is with a virus that is deadly as SARS-1 but as transmissible as SARS-2.

nradov 6y ago
Nothing you have described is even remotely feasible. I don't think you understand how the worldwide supply chain works. Plus it is impossible to deal with conflict zones and failed states.
__blockcipher__ 6y ago
> Eradication has been achieved in New Zealand. This isn't quite true, but even if I accept that as true, you haven't addressed the problem that this is a zoonotic virus. There are abundant animal reservoirs that will never go away. > Imagine if the next spillover is with a virus that is deadly as SARS-1 but as transmissible as SARS-2. I used to say exactly that, until realizing that a virus as deadly as SARS-1 will never spread as well as SARS-2. Granted, if this hypothetical virus had SARS-1 lethality with SARS-2 incubation period, it would do a lot "better" than SARS-2. Anyway, having thought deeply about this - and I'm sure you will strongly disagree here - even a SARS-1 danger virus with SARS-2 spread, I would be against (a) obviously eradication since I've already discussed why eradication is impossible, but more importantly: (b) I'm against trying to contain highly infectious respiratory viruses period.