4 ms·

Totally impossible. It will always return and resurge if there is little common immunity. There is literally no way to confine it indefinitely and any measure t

Totally impossible. It will always return and resurge if there is little common immunity. There is literally no way to confine it indefinitely and any measure to seek to do so would be unreasonable and never actually work anyway for this particular disease.

nkozyra 6y ago
I think where you're tripping up is the "indefinitely" part. The idea is to buy some time.
- easytiger 6y ago
  > The idea is to buy some time. It has been 8 months. That ship has sailed
  - nkozyra 6y ago
    In the scale of vaccinations that's a veritable tick of the second hand on the clock.
    - easytiger 6y ago
      In the scale of destroying the lives of billions of people it was a pretty efficient tick
      - nkozyra 6y ago
        I'm not sure of your number or the actual impact, but yes, it's going to cost something whether you do it or not.
        easytiger 6y ago
        I guess some people just want to see the world eviscerated by this, and some don't.
        nkozyra 6y ago
        That's a false dichotomy. This is obviously a balance, and someone will be upset (or sick or worse) no matter what choices are made. I'll say this - all of the resulting pains are temporary except one. Maybe we should continue to be thoughtful of that as we battle what is a temporary struggle.
        easytiger 6y ago
        It's not a false dichotomy.some people are indeed happy to see our way of life destroyed.
        nkozyra 6y ago
        That's really not a good faith argument. It's a dire situation with no good solution. Ascribing grand malice diminishes that. It's reductionist.
        easytiger 6y ago
        Perhaps revisit the start of this discussion. Lockdown will not frustrate the virus regarding any long term objective.
        nkozyra 6y ago
        > Perhaps revisit the start of this discussion. For what? People who side on curtailing a public health crisis do not want the economy to collapse. To claim a lockdown is ineffective is to deny the transmissivity of airborne viruses.
        easytiger 6y ago
        > To claim a lockdown is ineffective is to deny the transmissivity of airborne viruses. Good thing I didn't claim that then

nkozyra 6y ago

I think where you're tripping up is the "indefinitely" part. The idea is to buy some time.

easytiger 6y ago
> The idea is to buy some time. It has been 8 months. That ship has sailed
- nkozyra 6y ago
  In the scale of vaccinations that's a veritable tick of the second hand on the clock.
  - easytiger 6y ago
    In the scale of destroying the lives of billions of people it was a pretty efficient tick
    - nkozyra 6y ago
      I'm not sure of your number or the actual impact, but yes, it's going to cost something whether you do it or not.
      - easytiger 6y ago
        I guess some people just want to see the world eviscerated by this, and some don't.
        nkozyra 6y ago
        That's a false dichotomy. This is obviously a balance, and someone will be upset (or sick or worse) no matter what choices are made. I'll say this - all of the resulting pains are temporary except one. Maybe we should continue to be thoughtful of that as we battle what is a temporary struggle.
        easytiger 6y ago
        It's not a false dichotomy.some people are indeed happy to see our way of life destroyed.
        nkozyra 6y ago
        That's really not a good faith argument. It's a dire situation with no good solution. Ascribing grand malice diminishes that. It's reductionist.
        easytiger 6y ago
        Perhaps revisit the start of this discussion. Lockdown will not frustrate the virus regarding any long term objective.
        nkozyra 6y ago
        > Perhaps revisit the start of this discussion. For what? People who side on curtailing a public health crisis do not want the economy to collapse. To claim a lockdown is ineffective is to deny the transmissivity of airborne viruses.
        easytiger 6y ago
        > To claim a lockdown is ineffective is to deny the transmissivity of airborne viruses. Good thing I didn't claim that then