3 ms·

>The problem is that there is a segment of people who refuse to do anything at all to reduce the risk of transmission so we end up having to take more extreme a

>The problem is that there is a segment of people who refuse to do anything at all to reduce the risk of transmission so we end up having to take more extreme actions to compensate I think you might be missing the fact that if this segment of the population does increase transmission, it can only do so by the members of that segment getting infected, and that can only happen once per person as far as we know. So over time, you would expect that group to be less and less prone to infection, and therefore less able to pass on infection to others. So the more time goes by, the weaker this argument becomes.

thinkharderdev 6y ago
Strictly speaking that is of course true, but I'm not sure it is relevant over the time scales we are concerned with. If there were only a handful of such people then they would all get infected relatively quickly and stop contributing to overall spread. And that may be the case in localized outbreaks, but I see their role overall as "seeding" individual hot spots. In other words, people who disregard basic social distancing protocols may not spread COIVD until it actually becomes prevalent in their local area. And when that happens they become the super-spreaders which cause new local outbreaks to fire up.