Eggonaught 
[@Kazapsky](/forums/generals/topics/tartarus?post_id=5170789#post_5170789)
This is absolutely unhinged. You don't "beat" endemic respiratory viruses: they just keep circulating, with the population gradually developing immunity to the older strains while the newer ones become less virulent. The 1918 flu is still floating around, albeit almost unrecognizably mutated into milder forms.
The only policy lever we have any control over is how rapidly it circulates. And since that's a _very_ expensive lever to pull, you need to have a realistic picture of what the potential benefits are.
Delaying the spread of particularly deadly viruses until vulnerable members of the population can be vaccinated probably makes sense. Locking down your society in perpetuity to put off the inevitable does not.
Some people are pretending that respiratory viruses are possible to wipe out like polio, or are just not imagining any kind of end state at all, because they just want to yell "THE ETHICAL APPROACH HAS FAILED!" and justify stomping their foot down HARD. The supposed goal of the stomping never gets explained--the important part is _doing it_.
"A big chunk of humanity" is not going to die, either now or when the next zoonotic virus emerges. Unless it can be contained at the source, it will become endemic and spread to the entire population over time. The most vulnerable .1-1% of the population will die from it, and it will get added to the burden on everyone else's immune systems.
If you want to actually _help_ rather than find excuses to STOMP, there are a couple of useful measures for the next time this happens.
* General public health is the difference between a disease killing 1% vs 5% of a population: proper nutrition and reducing obesity will go a long way to reducing the impact of novel diseases. The 2nd plague pandemic and the '18 flu are the best examples of how poor general health can exponentially increase disease death rates.
Unfortunately this is probably off the table given how unsuccessful government anti-obesity campaigns have been, and because we now have Fat Pride movements claiming that obesity doesn't cause health issues.
* Virome surveillance is expensive but probably vital going forward, making the big assumption that governments are actually able to use the data sensibly. Various projects like the Seattle Flu Study gave the earliest warnings of international cases while the WHO was still insisting there was "no evidence of human-to-human transmission".
* International travel is probably the easiest single point to "slow the spread" without abandoning ethics or accepting massive disruptions. It's also something governments can do without seizing insane new powers over domestic life (cynically, this is why they won't bother with it). Again, the '18 flu shows what happens when you allow (or force) large global population transfers.
* Finally, there's a lot more we could be doing to help the elderly, who tend to be the biggest victims of novel diseases. Modern nursing homes are death traps, and isolating retirement communities while a vaccine can be developed is probably the single best intervention in terms of effort & disruption per life-years saved. This one is complicated and the least amenable to government intervention; the best we can probably do is help old people make lifestyle decisions for themselves. At the very _least_ we should never repeat Andrew Cuomo's much-lauded "let's stick covid patients in nursing homes and see what happens!" stupidity.
(In before more "UR DEATHWORSHIPPER!" insults for caring about actually helpful policies, rather than excuses for vengeance against people you hate.)
This is absolutely unhinged. You don't "beat" endemic respiratory viruses: they just keep circulating, with the population gradually developing immunity to the older strains while the newer ones become less virulent. The 1918 flu is still floating around, albeit almost unrecognizably mutated into milder forms.
The only policy lever we have any control over is how rapidly it circulates. And since that's a _very_ expensive lever to pull, you need to have a realistic picture of what the potential benefits are.
Delaying the spread of particularly deadly viruses until vulnerable members of the population can be vaccinated probably makes sense. Locking down your society in perpetuity to put off the inevitable does not.
Some people are pretending that respiratory viruses are possible to wipe out like polio, or are just not imagining any kind of end state at all, because they just want to yell "THE ETHICAL APPROACH HAS FAILED!" and justify stomping their foot down HARD. The supposed goal of the stomping never gets explained--the important part is _doing it_.
"A big chunk of humanity" is not going to die, either now or when the next zoonotic virus emerges. Unless it can be contained at the source, it will become endemic and spread to the entire population over time. The most vulnerable .1-1% of the population will die from it, and it will get added to the burden on everyone else's immune systems.
If you want to actually _help_ rather than find excuses to STOMP, there are a couple of useful measures for the next time this happens.
* General public health is the difference between a disease killing 1% vs 5% of a population: proper nutrition and reducing obesity will go a long way to reducing the impact of novel diseases. The 2nd plague pandemic and the '18 flu are the best examples of how poor general health can exponentially increase disease death rates.
Unfortunately this is probably off the table given how unsuccessful government anti-obesity campaigns have been, and because we now have Fat Pride movements claiming that obesity doesn't cause health issues.
* Virome surveillance is expensive but probably vital going forward, making the big assumption that governments are actually able to use the data sensibly. Various projects like the Seattle Flu Study gave the earliest warnings of international cases while the WHO was still insisting there was "no evidence of human-to-human transmission".
* International travel is probably the easiest single point to "slow the spread" without abandoning ethics or accepting massive disruptions. It's also something governments can do without seizing insane new powers over domestic life (cynically, this is why they won't bother with it). Again, the '18 flu shows what happens when you allow (or force) large global population transfers.
* Finally, there's a lot more we could be doing to help the elderly, who tend to be the biggest victims of novel diseases. Modern nursing homes are death traps, and isolating retirement communities while a vaccine can be developed is probably the single best intervention in terms of effort & disruption per life-years saved. This one is complicated and the least amenable to government intervention; the best we can probably do is help old people make lifestyle decisions for themselves. At the very _least_ we should never repeat Andrew Cuomo's much-lauded "let's stick covid patients in nursing homes and see what happens!" stupidity.
(In before more "UR DEATHWORSHIPPER!" insults for caring about actually helpful policies, rather than excuses for vengeance against people you hate.)