This virus is novel. The whole human population is immunologically naive to it. We don't know what affect it will have on us. Suppression/eradication is the only way forward.
This study provides direct evidence that the “novel factor” is not as important as was previously thought. Maybe no-one has cleared a virus exactly like this one before (we can’t be sure), but it is looking more and more like many people have pre-existing immune responses that can clear this one.
> Suppression/eradication is the only way forward.
You may end up being right, but to me this is sounding less and less like a scientific conclusion, and more and more like a religious creed.
The way to say is ..."the only way we can count on" is eradication. Sure, keep working on the other approaches but relying on them is foolish.
And eradication is literally impossible. It just shows how little these people know. It’s a zoonotic virus with abundant animal reservoirs, a high reproduction rate and pre-symptomatic spread. Even with a vaccine it fails the zoonotic requirement.
It’s endemic and here to stay. Anyone paying attention has known that from the start. I’ve personally been saying this for months and I’m just a deterministic algorithm operating on fixed-length groups of bits called blocks.
True, another spillover from animal reservoirs is likely, either this virus or a similar one. Early warning with prompt response will be needed to control another outbreak. Immediately shutting down all international air travel would be a first action. Imagine if the next spillover is with a virus that is deadly as SARS-1 but as transmissible as SARS-2.
This isn't quite true, but even if I accept that as true, you haven't addressed the problem that this is a zoonotic virus. There are abundant animal reservoirs that will never go away.
> Imagine if the next spillover is with a virus that is deadly as SARS-1 but as transmissible as SARS-2.
I used to say exactly that, until realizing that a virus as deadly as SARS-1 will never spread as well as SARS-2. Granted, if this hypothetical virus had SARS-1 lethality with SARS-2 incubation period, it would do a lot "better" than SARS-2.
Anyway, having thought deeply about this - and I'm sure you will strongly disagree here - even a SARS-1 danger virus with SARS-2 spread, I would be against (a) obviously eradication since I've already discussed why eradication is impossible, but more importantly: (b) I'm against trying to contain highly infectious respiratory viruses period.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7095063/
As for what that means for eradication:
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eradication_of_infectious_dise...
> The targeted organism must not have a non-human reservoir (or, in the case of animal diseases, the infection reservoir must be an easily identifiable species, as in the case of rinderpest), and/or amplify in the environment. This implies that sufficient information on the life cycle and transmission dynamics is available at the time an eradication initiative is programmed.
^ This is why we can never eradicate it. There's a couple of other requirements. For example we could eventually pass this check:
> An efficient and practical intervention (such as a vaccine or antibiotic) must be available to interrupt transmission of the infective agent.
At its heart is the understanding that controlling the virus is the single most important thing right now - that this is a total war. This policy can only work, however, in societies with effective governance and a strong social fabric.
You misspelled “belief”.
Similarly, but less strongly, exposure to other human CoVs produces t cell cross reactivity.
The “suppression/eradication” is just dogma. BTW eradicating SARS-2 is impossible. It’s zoonotic in origin. Viruses with abundant animal reservoirs can never be feasibly eradicated. Please do some reading on this it’s basic stuff.