|
|
|
|
|
by CryptoPunk
2041 days ago
|
|
>>Note that I wasn't arguing for that. My argument is that a few simple, low impact measures would be enough to drop the effective infectivity of the virus low enough that it would fizzle out. What's the difference between a virus being extripated from a population, and a virus "fizzling out"? If it's not extripated, then it will immediately start spreading again as soon as those measures are lifted. >>That wouldn't 100% eliminate the virus, as it would continue to spread and pool in countries without those guidelines. Note that I didn't say that you argued for eliminating the virus from the entire world. I said that you are advocating extripating the virus from one particular country, and I argued that that would be extremely difficult to pull off and then maintain by physically isolating that country from the rest of the world. |
|
The goal is to maintain measures until a vaccine arrives, eliminating the threat for any said country.
> I argued that that would be extremely difficult to pull off and then maintain by physically isolating that country from the rest of the world.
You don't need the country to be isolated from the rest of the world. If the effective reproduction (R) of your country's population is below 1 it won't spread there, even if the rest of the world is letting it run wild and free.
And it's likely we can get R below 1 for any given population with just strict mask usage and curtailing some higher risk social activities. That's my argument. We don't need to do messy lockdowns, ruin our social lives, etc. If everyone just got on board with those simple measures instead of being selfish.