4 ms·

> Reducing the spread is preventing it No, it's kicking the can down the road. The virus is highly infectious, always was. There's no prevention, just delayin

> Reducing the spread is preventing it No, it's kicking the can down the road. The virus is highly infectious, always was. There's no prevention, just delaying the inevitable, and possibly waiting for a variant that is more severe (to someone without any prior exposure), and not having any protection other than vaccines that are based on much earlier/different strains. I'm a little worried about this for my parents, for what it's worth.

tambourine_man 4y ago
Dealing with viral infections is all about timing. The further you kick that can, the better.
maxerickson 4y ago
Yes, if you read my comment I sort of discuss how kicking the can down the road can be a good thing (you can change the vulnerability of the population!). The Omicron targeted vaccines likely provide a worthwhile improvement in protection against the recent variants. Hopefully the public health apparatus chooses to release them, rather than doing nothing.
- tomhoward 4y ago
  The whole point of the phrase "kicking the can down the road" is that it's not something you should do forever. As difficult as it was to live through, I'm supportive of what was done here in Melbourne to suppress the virus in 2020-21 when the variants were more severe and the vaccines weren't around. It's what enabled our fatality rate to be kept to one of the lowest in the world. It doesn't make sense to keep doing it now, and doing so could make the problem worse. In a complex system these issues aren't without tradeoffs. Luckily our health officials agree so we're all good. (Btw saying “if you read my comment” is poor conduct here as I’m sure you know.)
  - autoexec 4y ago
    > The whole point of the phrase "kicking the can down the road" is that it's not something you should do forever. you literally can as long as you keep on kicking and you keep road in front of you.
    - tomhoward 4y ago
      So, to re-cap on this discussion... - I ask a parent commenter who has asserted that society should still be preventing transmission of a highly infectious virus if they know of a system that could actually achieve that; - A few commenters invoke China's approach (whilst conceding it was excessively draconian), others insist that it's not about preventing transmission, just slowing it, conveniently avoiding confronting the fact that the original point was about prevention, and even if it wasn't, slowing spread still means infection is inevitable; - Nobody suggests an approach that would have been effective or palatable; - Many hours later, a new commenter slides in to point out that it really is literally possible to keep kicking a can down a road forever, as if this is either true in practice, consistent with the rhetorical point of that metaphor, or relevant to the point at hand. I'll ask the central question again: can anyone describe a system that would have (a) been effective at preventing spread of the virus, and (b) resulted in a society that anyone wanted to continue living in, or that could even function at all?
      - maxerickson 4y ago
        Why would anybody bother discussing it if you hold yourself as the decider of what is worthwhile and what isn't? More testing would have been worthwhile. Supporting isolation from households would have been worthwhile. Improving ventilation is probably worth the cost. And on and on.
        tomhoward 4y ago
        Once again you choose to attack me instead of confronting the issue I’m raising. I’m not being a decider of anything, I’m asking for an answer to a very simple question. The question is: how can spread of this virus be completely prevented, so that nobody gets infected? This is clearly what the root commenter and the XKCD cartoon they shared are asserting should be happening. Methods that just slow the inevitable are clearly sidestepping the point. And methods that make society into a dystopian nightmare may be technically argument-winning but not practical and thus make lame contributions to the discussion. Testing, ventilation, supported isolation are fine; we’ve had and still have some of those measures in Australia, and I agree it’s helpful to slow spread and protect those most vulnerable for a while. I’ve been fine with that happening here. But that’s not the primary topic of this discussion. Please stop with the ad-homs and side-stepping and address the point.

tambourine_man 4y ago

Dealing with viral infections is all about timing. The further you kick that can, the better.

maxerickson 4y ago

Yes, if you read my comment I sort of discuss how kicking the can down the road can be a good thing (you can change the vulnerability of the population!). The Omicron targeted vaccines likely provide a worthwhile improvement in protection against the recent variants. Hopefully the public health apparatus chooses to release them, rather than doing nothing.

tomhoward 4y ago
The whole point of the phrase "kicking the can down the road" is that it's not something you should do forever. As difficult as it was to live through, I'm supportive of what was done here in Melbourne to suppress the virus in 2020-21 when the variants were more severe and the vaccines weren't around. It's what enabled our fatality rate to be kept to one of the lowest in the world. It doesn't make sense to keep doing it now, and doing so could make the problem worse. In a complex system these issues aren't without tradeoffs. Luckily our health officials agree so we're all good. (Btw saying “if you read my comment” is poor conduct here as I’m sure you know.)
- autoexec 4y ago
  > The whole point of the phrase "kicking the can down the road" is that it's not something you should do forever. you literally can as long as you keep on kicking and you keep road in front of you.
  - tomhoward 4y ago
    So, to re-cap on this discussion... - I ask a parent commenter who has asserted that society should still be preventing transmission of a highly infectious virus if they know of a system that could actually achieve that; - A few commenters invoke China's approach (whilst conceding it was excessively draconian), others insist that it's not about preventing transmission, just slowing it, conveniently avoiding confronting the fact that the original point was about prevention, and even if it wasn't, slowing spread still means infection is inevitable; - Nobody suggests an approach that would have been effective or palatable; - Many hours later, a new commenter slides in to point out that it really is literally possible to keep kicking a can down a road forever, as if this is either true in practice, consistent with the rhetorical point of that metaphor, or relevant to the point at hand. I'll ask the central question again: can anyone describe a system that would have (a) been effective at preventing spread of the virus, and (b) resulted in a society that anyone wanted to continue living in, or that could even function at all?
    - maxerickson 4y ago
      Why would anybody bother discussing it if you hold yourself as the decider of what is worthwhile and what isn't? More testing would have been worthwhile. Supporting isolation from households would have been worthwhile. Improving ventilation is probably worth the cost. And on and on.
      - tomhoward 4y ago
        Once again you choose to attack me instead of confronting the issue I’m raising. I’m not being a decider of anything, I’m asking for an answer to a very simple question. The question is: how can spread of this virus be completely prevented, so that nobody gets infected? This is clearly what the root commenter and the XKCD cartoon they shared are asserting should be happening. Methods that just slow the inevitable are clearly sidestepping the point. And methods that make society into a dystopian nightmare may be technically argument-winning but not practical and thus make lame contributions to the discussion. Testing, ventilation, supported isolation are fine; we’ve had and still have some of those measures in Australia, and I agree it’s helpful to slow spread and protect those most vulnerable for a while. I’ve been fine with that happening here. But that’s not the primary topic of this discussion. Please stop with the ad-homs and side-stepping and address the point.