4 ms·

SARS-CoV-2 is a zoonotic, (fairly) highly infectious endemic respiratory virus. Eradication is literally impossible, and even if we could wave a magic wand and

SARS-CoV-2 is a zoonotic, (fairly) highly infectious endemic respiratory virus. Eradication is literally impossible, and even if we could wave a magic wand and simultaneously eradicate it from all humans on earth, you still need to worry about it jumping back over from any of the many animal species infected with it. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eradication_of_infectious_diseases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eradication_of_infectious_dise...: > The selection of infectious diseases for eradication is based on rigorous criteria, as both biological and technical features determine whether a pathogenic organism is (at least potentially) eradicable. The targeted organism must not have a non-human reservoir (or, in the case of animal diseases, the infection reservoir must be an easily identifiable species, as in the case of rinderpest), and/or amplify in the environment. This implies that sufficient information on the life cycle and transmission dynamics is available at the time an eradication initiative is programmed. An efficient and practical intervention (such as a vaccine or antibiotic) must be available to interrupt transmission of the infective agent. Studies of measles in the pre-vaccination era led to the concept of the critical community size, the size of the population below which a pathogen ceases to circulate.[2] The use of vaccination programs before the introduction of an eradication campaign can reduce the susceptible population. The disease to be eradicated should be clearly identifiable, and an accurate diagnostic tool should exist. Economic considerations, as well as societal and political support and commitment, are other crucial factors that determine eradication feasibility.[3][4] SARS-CoV-2 satisfies none of these pre-conditions (except for having a vaccine now). It is not only unrealistic but actively delusional/deleterious to argue for “COVID zero”. Don’t fall for it. Remember herd immunity doesn’t mean eradication. The virus stays endemic. Which is fine; over the long run the set of all COVID-19-naive individuals becomes dominated by the very young (infants/toddlers), who have essentially zero risk of COVID-19 mortality.

croes 6y ago
"who have essentially zero risk of COVID-19 mortality." With current virus, that could change with each mutation.
- __blockcipher__ 6y ago
  Viruses generally change to be less deadly and more transmissible. The “new variant” is just more transmissible. It doesn’t make sense to argue “oh what if this virus magically evolves to hurt children”. You need to propose a theoretical mechanism of action. Otherwise spend your time worrying about flu and tuberculosis which kill far more children than COVID-19.
  - croes 6y ago
    And it infects children more easily.
    - __blockcipher__ 6y ago
      What’s your point? As I said: > over the long run the set of all COVID-19-naive individuals becomes dominated by the very young (infants/toddlers), who have essentially zero risk of COVID-19 mortality.
      - croes 6y ago
        "Babies under 1 year old and children with certain underlying conditions may be more likely to have severe illness from COVID-19." Zero risk?
      - croes 6y ago
        BTW they generally become less deadly because the less deadly spread faster because they don't kill the host, but this virus has a rather long incubation period, so you can have both. Easy spread and higher death rate.
- herewegoagain2 6y ago
  A lot of things COULD happen. For example, a meteor could hit the earth and wipe out all life. Therefore we should pour ALL resources into space exploration, not medicine.
  - 6y ago
Gatsky 6y ago
This is a new disease, we don’t know what is going to happen in the future. There could be chronic consequences we don’t know about yet, for example. The virus could evolve to have much higher mortality next year. By allowing it to become endemic, we are also bequeathing it to all future humans. There is surely a more risk aware scenario between endemicity and total eradication.

croes 6y ago

"who have essentially zero risk of COVID-19 mortality." With current virus, that could change with each mutation.

__blockcipher__ 6y ago
Viruses generally change to be less deadly and more transmissible. The “new variant” is just more transmissible. It doesn’t make sense to argue “oh what if this virus magically evolves to hurt children”. You need to propose a theoretical mechanism of action. Otherwise spend your time worrying about flu and tuberculosis which kill far more children than COVID-19.
- croes 6y ago
  And it infects children more easily.
  - __blockcipher__ 6y ago
    What’s your point? As I said: > over the long run the set of all COVID-19-naive individuals becomes dominated by the very young (infants/toddlers), who have essentially zero risk of COVID-19 mortality.
    - croes 6y ago
      "Babies under 1 year old and children with certain underlying conditions may be more likely to have severe illness from COVID-19." Zero risk?
    - croes 6y ago
      BTW they generally become less deadly because the less deadly spread faster because they don't kill the host, but this virus has a rather long incubation period, so you can have both. Easy spread and higher death rate.
herewegoagain2 6y ago
A lot of things COULD happen. For example, a meteor could hit the earth and wipe out all life. Therefore we should pour ALL resources into space exploration, not medicine.
- 6y ago

Gatsky 6y ago

This is a new disease, we don’t know what is going to happen in the future. There could be chronic consequences we don’t know about yet, for example. The virus could evolve to have much higher mortality next year. By allowing it to become endemic, we are also bequeathing it to all future humans. There is surely a more risk aware scenario between endemicity and total eradication.