The Virus Can Be Stopped, but Only with Harsh Steps, Experts Say

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prepare/animals.ht...

Once we have massive testing, we must create clean zones in order to allow the economy to recover.

If we do not create "clean zones", the virus will return as soon as you lift the quarantine.

Three weeks is probably safer, but they can relax movement on the third week, and allow the person to move about, with active monitoring.

However, this will kill the tourism industry.

Another way, is they only allow entrance from other countries that are certified to also be virus-free. And which controls their borders from other uncertified countries, while maintaining an active health monitoring of the traveling person.

So much for being James Bond in this new age.

But the locals were more individually prepared to comply with guidelines

https://www.biospace.com/article/releases/20-20-bioresponse-...

The FDA has given states the authority to approve antibody tests on their own.

https://globalbiodefense.com/2020/03/16/fda-pandemic-respons...

https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/05/how-blood-plasma-from-re...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthomyxoviridae

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronavirus

* During replication of cells, DNA changes happen by accident and random chance. This yields random new traits. * A random trait might be useful to survival and reproduction, or it might be a hindrance. Maybe a trait that was once beneficial becomes a hindrance when the environment in which an organism lives shifts (i.e. higher Ph values of a pond of water will cause a shift in which bacteria will thrive, and which won't)

Regardless of what you do, you can't stop mutation as long as cells are living and replicating. You don't control the appearance of traits directly as replication is basically a roll of the dice. (Technically, you can through genetic engineering, but we're talking about what happens outside the lab).

Finally, viruses are arguably life. They are envelopes with genetic material. They aren't a hive mind following a conscious strategy. Their emergent behavior is dictated by the traits they happen to have, and a gazillion environmental factors. Nothing else.

So, when we say "The virus is spreading", we are really saying "More people are infected and infecting others as well." a virus doesn't willfully jump between hosts.

Lethality isn't a good trait either. The goal of a virus is to spread genetic material, killing its host is an inadvertent second order effect of replication. Viruses that are inadvertently too lethal will run out of hosts rather quickly.

This SARS-Cov2 is a perfect storm because (a) of the properties of the virus itself - very contagious in 1-1 contact, low lethality, it's entirely new - and (b) because of environmental circumstances: 7.75 billion available hosts and globalisation / massive mobility.

While we don't control mutation, the best case scenario is that quarantines, lockdown and eventual treatments will subdue that people keep spreading this strain. But replication might yield other traits and less harmful cousins of this virus might spread instead.

(edit: lest we forget, homo sapiens sapiens is the net result of many mutations over the course of millions of years. So, beware of inadvertent value attribution!)

This piece of this story is utterly fascinating to me right now. It's like half the population has a completely different interpretation of the phrase shelter-in-place. I feel like it's entirely too vague and has led to a situation where, in my neck of the woods in Orange county, CA, people are using the ambiguous language to justify going about their daily lives. Where, to me, the order is very clear: stay in or near your home. The beach isn't in or near my home. It isn't in or near the majority of our homes. And neither is the dog park, or the county or state parks, or the national forest near us, etc.. And, yet, on social media, it's very easy to find people complaining about how surprised they were when they went to the beach, or where ever, and it was totally packed with people. It's making me question my sanity that we can have such wildly different interpretations of this situation.

https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-not-human-made-in-la...

Undocumented people are less likely to seek medical care if they become ill. At least in our political climate.

During a pandemic that’s dangerous for everyone. The general population and for them and their families

OP also hasn't said anything even remotely akin to:

> undocumented immigrants are the only ones suffering, and that “good natural-born Americans” can all afford to sit inside for a few weeks.

It seems intellectually dishonest to make such lofty assumptions based on a post the length of a tweet or two. Imagine if instead of assuming ill-intent we just said 'hey he's right there are people that can't afford to comply...we should consider that in our policy to the benefit of everyone involved...'

The world would be a better place.

This is the sort of obvious nonsense that gets in the way of constructive solutions. Undocumented immigrants aren't getting stable employment or social benefits. Nor can they rely on the medical system or any local or federal institutions for support. They are, with absolute certainty, an identifiable group where an extraordinary majority are undoubtedly in a situation where compliance will be terrifying, if not impossible.

Pretending they are being 'targeted' or 'demonized' in this thread is pure intellectual dishonesty. The reason they're being discussed is because they are in the position they are in, and because that situation creates a need for special care and attention.

> This is not constructive or helpful.

Actually, it is. Considering they we have millions of people who might be unable to comply, for totally logical and non-malicious reasons, is constructive.

You know what's not constructive? Putting blinders on and conveniently ignoring an entire group of people who may find themselves in dire financial and medical situations, and who can potentially spread the virus to others unintentionally. This isn't demonization. This is reality. Nobody in this thread is saying 'Let's deport/kill/refuse care to all the illegals!' These people need to eat just like the rest of us, let's not pretend they just don't exist.

I don't believe that this interpretation of OP is very charitable.

Regardless of the politics of undocumented immigrants, you have to account for how you are going to service these people. This group is currently living outside of the system.

To combat COVID19, we need them to participate inside of this system.

This isn't actually a bad thing to point out and it SUPPORTS the "undocumented immigrants" cause.

We can't keep pretending that they don't live IN this society.

Acknowledging that as it stands, they can't economically or politically participate in the system is not the same thing as advocating for them to be removed or punished.

If anything, it acknowledges that the current system doesn't work and needs to be re-worked to include this group of people.

Again, 10M people are unable to participate in a productive treatment or cure. This will ensure that we all fail to contain and mitigate this disaster.

> Case isolation in the home — Assume 70% compliance — Symptomatic cases stay at home for 7 days. Household contacts remain unchanged.

> Voluntary home quarantine — Assume 50% compliance — Following identification of a symptomaticcase in the household, all household members remain at home for 14 days.

> Social distancing of those over 70 years of age — Assume 75% compliance

> Social distancing of entire population — Assume 75% reduced contact outside household, school or workplace (the wording here is different, does not mention "compliance")

> Closure of schools and universities — 100% of schools, 75% of universities

I would recommend reading the report. Unlike certain summaries, the report itself is very clear about all the assumptions baked in, and so you won't get a false sense of "This is 100% how it will be". (That said, I'm not questioning their numbers since I think they're likely more accurate than any I could come up with myself).

[1]: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/s...

To convince them to participate in containment, their more responsible friends, family, and colleagues need to reach out, and more importantly we need to have consistent messaging from the government.

| ...those people recorded while spreading their spit all over a train cart.

are simply acting in ignorance because they have no idea how to behave?

Small point of disagreement on this one. There may not be a 1:1 correspondence between what’s happening now and any exact historical event, but I would have hoped that traditionally Western nations would have studied countries affected by SARS (et al.) and learned from their successes/failures.

There are plenty of places you can find that outside the US.

(But then the government uses the same alerts to notify about strong winds and elevated pollution levels, so it’s more or less a given.)

The ones from yesterday were the first to ask people to limit their mobility.

That being said, there's a lot we can do without infringing on freedoms too much. I think South Korea has a good model for handling disease spread, and The Netherlands has a good model for encouraging cycling and protecting cyclists from cars, both of which lead to lower vehicular deaths. Both countries were able to improve things without significantly disrupting society.

Yeah, maybe tens of thousands of people will die a few years before they would normally die without drastic measures, but the cost to save those lives doesn't seem to be worth it.