imagine if a terrorist attack killed over 100,000 people in just a couple of months. instead, we're just like "wasn't so bad" after doing hardly anything.
it's an embarrassment in the u.s. to see people in south korea and china returning back to life as almost normal without danger. and the numbers are incredibly damning to the u.s.
By the way, SK just kicked the can down the road, they are continuing to get spikes because they have no herd immunity: "Coronavirus: South Korea closes schools again after biggest spike in weeks" https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-52845015
i didn't. i said imagine the situation. i'm saying that people would pay attention and treat it seriously.
> Stop pretending that governments can regulate viruses out of existence
isn't that exactly what south korea did?
the point is that there is no excusing the u.s. response to the virus.
> By the way, SK just kicked the can down the road, they are continuing to get spikes because they have no herd immunity
point me to scientific evidence of herd immunity. or any evidence they've kicked the can down the road. look at their graphs and compare them to the u.s. how in the world is their response kicking the can down the road but the u.s.' isn't? that quite literally makes no sense.
You act as if the pandemic is over; the places that never shutdown or had light restrictions largely were hit later and, though they are behind, also haven't flattened the curve (and, many of the places that reopened early and rapidly, rather than gradually, are also seeing rebounds already.) They may not have yet seen overwhelmed hospitals, but a number of places in both of those groups that didn't before are nearing that point now.
> They have nothing under control
i think you have a vastly different definition of "under control" than i do.
> Their population is still vulnerable and has no antibodies.
again, do you have scientific evidence that backs such a claim up? i'm not claiming it doesn't exist, but it'd be nice if people making implications based upon such claims provide evidence for them.
> The U.S. did not have a monolithic response. Many states never shut down, and never experienced overrun hospitals. Many states had light restrictions and never experienced overrun hospitals. Some states sent sick people to nursing homes and then had overrun hospitals
what is your point, exactly?
In general, a contagious virus, like COVID-19, can be stopped in only one of three ways:
(1) by acquiring herd immunity, which for most viruses requires exposure of 30-95% of the population (check HIT values for various diseases in wikipedia; initial COVID estimates are somewhere in 29-80%). Neither SK nor China is there yet. Even Sweden or Belarus are not there yet. Even Africa is unlikely to be there yet.
(2) by completely stamping it out (with aggressive decontamination, quarantines, etc.). Again, neither SK nor China is there (this is obvious, they do not even claim it; see school re-closing in SK, Jilin flare up in China, etc.)
(3) by vaccination. Again, no vaccinations in SK, China or anywhere for this matter.
So coronavirus is not "under control" anywhere. We might just accept that and focus on some other things that would be just as nice to get under control: heart disease, cancer, opioid addiction, etc. Just my 2c.
For example, many countries kept mandatory smallpox vaccinations long after the disease was eradicated within their borders because otherwise a single traveler can wreak havoc. Check for example smallpox reintroduction to Yugoslavia in 1972 by a single pilgrim. A quick martial law and quarantines helped contain it, but even then it caused, according to Wikipedia, 175 infections and 35 deaths.
If COVID-19 is as virulent as it is claimed to be I would not bet on NZ staying COVID-free after travel restarts. My 2c.
Japan and China both managed to regulate the virus out of existence with more success than we have had at stopping terrorist attacks, doesn't seem like all that bad of a comparison to me.
Herd immunity kicks in at somewhere around 60-75% recovered, IIRC.
Unless the asymptomatic infection rate is at least an order of magnitude higher than anything remotely suggested, there's no possible way the US is approaching herd immunity. We're not even to 5% infected, let alone 50%.
Any amount of immunity or resistance within the population will reduce the effective reproduction rate of the virus. This effect becomes more significant as the immunity rate increases.
Herd immunity is a colloquial term which refers to the point where there's so much immunity that the effective reproduction rate <1 and new infection clusters die out. The percentage of the population which needs to be immune to get R<0 depends on many factors, consider that many countries have managed to achieve this with near zero population immunity.
For example - if we imagine a hypothetical society which could indefinitely maintain measures like social distancing and mask wearing, the effective reproduction number will be low to begin with; the population immunity required to get to R<0 will therefore be lower.
Please start here before spreading additional misinformation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_reproduction_number
Flagged.