Ways to end the Covid pandemic

[Starlight]

A lot of governments seem to be operating with the premise that "Nothing is too extreme if it could potentially save even a single life,"

I disagree that that is the mentality they are operating with. I would say they are trying to consider everything and best balance competing values of preservation of human life, the well-being of their population, economic factors etc.

now that they have been able to enforce their totalitarian dreams on a suddenly compliant population, they're reluctant to simply relinquish their newly acquired power.

I see this delusion from you often in your posts.

Historically speaking, governments around the world have NOT drifted toward totalitarianism. Instead they have drifted toward becoming more democratic. Learn some basic history. Or look at a graph of the number of democracies around the world over time. The number of democratic countries, and percentage of the world living under well-functioning democracies, have both fairly linearly increased steadily across the last 100-150 years.

There is, as a general rule, no particular reason to be afraid of any tendency to drift toward totalitarianism. Governments gradually accruing for themselves more and more power over time simply does not appear happen as much as the opposite does. People around the world have steadily become more free, not the opposite.

I mean, if extreme measures like forcing people to isolate, wear masks, and stand six-feet apart can tame something as supposedly virulent as the China flu, then imagine what could be done for less contagious illnesses like the common flu, which kills tens of thousands of people a year?

A nice-to-have byproduct of lockdowns to combat Covid has indeed been a decline in the common flu. However, given the economic trauma caused, it seems highly unlikely any government in the world would ever decide in future that a month-long lockdown to thwart the common flu alone would be worth it.

[Starlight]

People who are still for the lockdown, keep trying to use the vulnerable as an excuse to keep the healthy locked up. "But you will infect grandma!"

Countries where lockdowns haven't 'worked' in the sense that the virus is still very much present after a reasonably long attempt at doing a lockdown, have a very difficult path ahead IMO.

Clearly an indefinitely long lockdown is economic suicide and is eventually going to kill a lot of people due to poverty, suicide etc. And, eventually, that amount will be ballpark similar to the cost of just letting the virus rampage its way across the entire population (and thus, presumably, achieving herd immunity).

[MaxVel]

Countries where lockdowns haven't 'worked' in the sense that the virus is still very much present after a reasonably long attempt at doing a lockdown, have a very difficult path ahead IMO.

Clearly an indefinitely long lockdown is economic suicide and is eventually going to kill a lot of people due to poverty, suicide etc. And, eventually, that amount will be ballpark similar to the cost of just letting the virus rampage its way across the entire population (and thus, presumably, achieving herd immunity).

Good points. How does that work with countries like New Zealand that are going for elimination?

ISTM that the virus is going to be around in the world population until we either develop and use an effective vaccine, or a diagnosis and treatment regime. And I think neither or those are very likely. So what's the long-term goal for elimination given the virus presence in other populations?

[MaxVel]

What's the most likely outcome, long-term?

I think that some kind of global herd immunity is most probable.


One of the (insurmountable?) issues is the there are lots of countries that can't or won't institute an effective lockdown. Some countries (UK, America, Italy ...) have missed the boat, some are too poor to lock people down (can't work, can't eat -> can't lockdown). I think the virus is going to be present at some level in those populations for the forseeable future. Which means that there is the chance of an outbreak of those populations come into contact with ones that have had less exposure to the virus. Ergo, eventual widespread exposure and herd immunity, unless countries indefinitely bar themselves from contact with infected populations.


A vaccine seems less likely to me, given our past lack of success with coronavirus vaccines, and even if we can make an effective one, it may take so long that it's not really going to reduce the death toll except to reduce the chances of a re-occurrence of the outbreak. IO, by the time we have a vaccine (if ever) we may have pretty much reached herd immunity anyway.


A diagnosis/treatment regime taking down the virus also seems unlikely to be successful, given the range of resources and ability of countries to implement it effectively. I can't see it being very workable in the poorer and more chaotic countries -> a virus reservoir in those populations -> chances of another pandemic.


Shunya's idea of the virus following a natural Bell curve and eventually becoming less of a threat (one way or another) seems quite likely to me as well. Our actions may alter the shape of the curve to some degree or other.


For the reasons given in my reply to Starlight I don't see elimination* as being very workable on a global scale unless we completely change how we live. I am dubious about it's success as a long-term strategy for a country, given the unlikelihood of a world-wide solution.

Given what we know, and the probabilities of the different solutions, what strategy should most countries be adopting?

Second question: what are the factors (apart from how many people will die now from the virus) that should be considered in making a plan?



*Note that in epidemiologist speak, elimination means reducing (and maintaining?) the number of infected people in a population down to a very low level.

[Starlight]

Good points. How does that work with countries like New Zealand that are going for elimination?

In NZ, and many states of Australia, we are seeing an increasing numbers of days with zero new cases, despite ever-increasing testing.

As soon as both we and Australia can demonstrate to each other a complete lack of cases or close to it (e.g. lets say 14 days of zero new cases in both countries, to pick an arbitrary number, despite high testing levels), the borders between the countries will be opened. This is already being actively negotiated. And likely also with the various pacific island nations that had no cases due to sufficiently-fast border closures.

Over time, other countries (e.g. South Korea, Taiwan etc) may be added into the permitted travel zone if and when they sufficiently demonstrate elimination has been achieved. I would tend to assume that over time more and more countries will achieve elimination and be added to this list.

Once a vaccine is developed, travel with the rest of the world could be resumed.

ISTM that the virus is going to be around in the world population until we either develop and use an effective vaccine, or a diagnosis and treatment regime. And I think neither or those are very likely. So what's the long-term goal for elimination given the virus presence in other populations?

If a vaccine is never developed, and this virus never goes away (which would be somewhat unusual, given previous pandemics tended to last a year or so), then you'd end up with a world divided into two groups, the elimination group and the constantly-dying-to-it group.

At that stage, countries in the dying-to-it group would have to make a decision to try and eliminate it via quarantine/lockdown and so move into the other group. And countries in the elimination group would have to decide whether it was worth giving up on elimination in order to open borders with the other group. You might see a situation where there was a divided world for some time and travel from the dying-to-it group to the elimination group was allowed if the person went into quarantine for 2 weeks on arrival and then tested negative after quarantine (and travel in the other direction would be unimpeded).

[MaxVel]

I forgot one more possible solution:


nuke it from orbit.jpg

[NorrinRadd]

I forgot one more possible solution:


[ATTACH=CONFIG]44505[/ATTACH]

I'm fine with that.

[rogue06]

I forgot one more possible solution:


[ATTACH=CONFIG]44505[/ATTACH]

stopcorona.jpg

[Ronson]

So, if a million people die rather than 100,000, and they are not all "more vulnerable," then that would be okay by you?

He said nothing of the sort.

[JimL]

He said nothing of the sort.

I understand that he didn't mean it that way, but being that the outcome of his position would end in that result, he implied it.

[Sparko]

What's the most likely outcome, long-term?

I think that some kind of global herd immunity is most probable.


One of the (insurmountable?) issues is the there are lots of countries that can't or won't institute an effective lockdown. Some countries (UK, America, Italy ...) have missed the boat, some are too poor to lock people down (can't work, can't eat -> can't lockdown). I think the virus is going to be present at some level in those populations for the forseeable future. Which means that there is the chance of an outbreak of those populations come into contact with ones that have had less exposure to the virus. Ergo, eventual widespread exposure and herd immunity, unless countries indefinitely bar themselves from contact with infected populations.


A vaccine seems less likely to me, given our past lack of success with coronavirus vaccines, and even if we can make an effective one, it may take so long that it's not really going to reduce the death toll except to reduce the chances of a re-occurrence of the outbreak. IO, by the time we have a vaccine (if ever) we may have pretty much reached herd immunity anyway.


A diagnosis/treatment regime taking down the virus also seems unlikely to be successful, given the range of resources and ability of countries to implement it effectively. I can't see it being very workable in the poorer and more chaotic countries -> a virus reservoir in those populations -> chances of another pandemic.


Shunya's idea of the virus following a natural Bell curve and eventually becoming less of a threat (one way or another) seems quite likely to me as well. Our actions may alter the shape of the curve to some degree or other.


For the reasons given in my reply to Starlight I don't see elimination* as being very workable on a global scale unless we completely change how we live. I am dubious about it's success as a long-term strategy for a country, given the unlikelihood of a world-wide solution.

Given what we know, and the probabilities of the different solutions, what strategy should most countries be adopting?

Second question: what are the factors (apart from how many people will die now from the virus) that should be considered in making a plan?



*Note that in epidemiologist speak, elimination means reducing (and maintaining?) the number of infected people in a population down to a very low level.

we already have one known effective treatment: antibodies harvested from recovered people and injected into sick people. As more and more people get over it, the pool of available antibodies will increase to the point it will be easily accessible to anyone who catches it. It doesn't provide permanent protection, but it will get a person over the current infection. If their bodies start making their own antibodies at the same time, that could provide permanent protection.

[Cerebrum123]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]44515[/ATTACH]

The Babylon Bee has an article with the "Coronavirus Seeking Missiles" as another joke option.

[Mountain Man]

Good points. How does that work with countries like New Zealand that are going for elimination?

ISTM that the virus is going to be around in the world population until we either develop and use an effective vaccine, or a diagnosis and treatment regime. And I think neither or those are very likely. So what's the long-term goal for elimination given the virus presence in other populations?

I suppose we could eliminate it with vaccines the same way we "eliminated" smallpox and polio by simply calling them something else.

[NorrinRadd]

I suppose we could eliminate it with vaccines the same way we "eliminated" smallpox and polio by simply calling them something else.

Ok, unpack this a bit, if you don't mind.

[Mountain Man]

Ok, unpack this a bit, if you don't mind.

For example, it is widely believed that smallpox was eradicated, so when a suspiciously similar disease with identical symptoms suddenly appears, doctors can't very well call it something that was supposedly "eradicated" (well, they could, but that would be career suicide), so instead they give it a new name. In this case, "monkeypox".

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...x-on-the-rise/

Same thing with polio. Any new cases with polio-like symptoms are diagnosed as "acute flaccid myelitis". Which is to say that despite the fact that a disease has the exact same symptoms as polio, doctors are discouraged from referring to it as something that was supposedly "eradicated".

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/acute-f...ise-questions/

So perhaps that's a solution here, develop a vaccine for the Wuhan flu, declare it "eradicated" so life can go back to normal, and then when new cases appear, give it a new name.