3 ms·

> We don't need to eradicate it, just get things under control Based on what we've seen there is no grey area. Either you fully control it which then ends up b

> We don't need to eradicate it, just get things under control Based on what we've seen there is no grey area. Either you fully control it which then ends up basically eradicating it e.g. Australia/NZ or you don't and then you end up like EU/US and going in and out of infection waves.

dbetteridge 6y ago
Absence of evidence does not imply evidence of absence. Anything that reduces the R rate sufficiently will mean fewer outbreaks and reduce the strain on the hospital system.
SilentBan 6y ago
From what I see you are a braindamaged lockdowncel.
oblio 6y ago
Not really. We haven't (yet?) eradicated the cold or the flu, but we manage to live with them. We need to be able to protect the most vulnerable (probably something like 30% of the population) and reduce load on the healthcare system. Right now if every activity would be fully available (concerts, conferences, airlines, etc.) every healthcare system across the world would probably be overwhelmed within 2 months, max. Once we reduce the rates to a trickle, things are probably good enough. I'm not saying that we shouldn't try to eradicate it, but as with everything, unfortunately, things are frequently taken to a point where they're "good enough" and no further.
bawolff 6y ago
In an unvacinated population, yeah, it spreads like wildfire. In a mostly vaccinated population having small pockets, well not good, is not the same level of existential threat. Think about how concerned you are personally about measeles vs how much someone 100 years ago would be.
FeepingCreature 6y ago
The thing with the EU is that we have variable, externally controlled infection rates. We could eradicate it, but there's no point because we have land borders to countries we can't control. So we're just trying to keep local rates below crippling. (With mixed success.) The point of a vaccine is that you can't scale it back for populist appeasement; once you have broad immunity you keep broad immunity for long enough that you end up eradicating the virus almost involuntarily. In comparison, a lockdown is much more vulnerable to feel-good measures reducing the effectiveness.
- bawolff 6y ago
  Eradication means elimination across the entire world. The last 1% is very hard and expensive, requiring sustained funding long after the crisis has passed. To date, we have only managed to eradicate two diseases (smallpox and rinderpest. Not counting diseases that never really managed to spread like SARS) in the entire history of humanity. Ever.

dbetteridge 6y ago

Absence of evidence does not imply evidence of absence. Anything that reduces the R rate sufficiently will mean fewer outbreaks and reduce the strain on the hospital system.

SilentBan 6y ago

From what I see you are a braindamaged lockdowncel.

oblio 6y ago

Not really. We haven't (yet?) eradicated the cold or the flu, but we manage to live with them. We need to be able to protect the most vulnerable (probably something like 30% of the population) and reduce load on the healthcare system. Right now if every activity would be fully available (concerts, conferences, airlines, etc.) every healthcare system across the world would probably be overwhelmed within 2 months, max. Once we reduce the rates to a trickle, things are probably good enough. I'm not saying that we shouldn't try to eradicate it, but as with everything, unfortunately, things are frequently taken to a point where they're "good enough" and no further.

bawolff 6y ago

In an unvacinated population, yeah, it spreads like wildfire. In a mostly vaccinated population having small pockets, well not good, is not the same level of existential threat. Think about how concerned you are personally about measeles vs how much someone 100 years ago would be.

FeepingCreature 6y ago

The thing with the EU is that we have variable, externally controlled infection rates. We could eradicate it, but there's no point because we have land borders to countries we can't control. So we're just trying to keep local rates below crippling. (With mixed success.) The point of a vaccine is that you can't scale it back for populist appeasement; once you have broad immunity you keep broad immunity for long enough that you end up eradicating the virus almost involuntarily. In comparison, a lockdown is much more vulnerable to feel-good measures reducing the effectiveness.

bawolff 6y ago
Eradication means elimination across the entire world. The last 1% is very hard and expensive, requiring sustained funding long after the crisis has passed. To date, we have only managed to eradicate two diseases (smallpox and rinderpest. Not counting diseases that never really managed to spread like SARS) in the entire history of humanity. Ever.