|
|
|
|
|
|
by rualca
2037 days ago
|
|
|
> Extripating the virus completely from the population, and keeping it out through total physical isolation of that population from the rest of the world, is a tall task. The goal is not to erradicar the disease. The goal is to take basic measures so that it's incidence and transmission rate are kept low. Spain achieved that during the first wave, where in a matter of weeks they managed to get the fatality rate from hundreds per day to the single digits, even achieving days without covid-related deaths. If the disease is contained, we not only avoid the chance of being infected but we also have a shot at normality. If the disease is not contained and allowed to ravage the world then all we get is the despair of having people dying left and right while hospitals are saturated far beyond capacity and unable to respond to any need. |
|
|
There is no normality with incredibly disruptive restrictions in place.
>If the disease is not contained and allowed to ravage the world then all we get is the despair of having people dying left and right while hospitals are saturated far beyond capacity and unable to respond to any need.
First of all, the average age of death for the coronavirus is something like 79. For most age groups, the virus is not extremely dangerous - even if it were allowed to spread like wildfire in a population without immunity, far more people under 50 will die from causes other than COVID19 in the virus' first year of exposure to humans. So no, society will not far into despair. 2.8 million people die in the US every year, and people seem to be able to continue to function.
Second, this doesn't go on indefinitely. Eventually people die or recover, with immunity. A population fully subjected to one wave of a virus will be far lessa affected in subsequent waves.