> 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 zoon

> 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.