Hacker News Reader

Comment by easytiger | Hacker News Reader

> suffocate the virus completely.

Literally impossible

This is obviously not meant literally, if that's what you're contesting.

If your argument is that we cannot remove the vector for viral spread, while technically true, we can have a large enough suppression of spread through isolation that the virus would not have enough human infections to propagate. Animal vectors are a different story, of course, and often are the impetus for larger human infections.

It is much easier to use pharmacological means for that. You don't fight bacterial pneumonia with good discipline and stern words, you use antibiotics. What will ultimately get out of this problem are drugs (and vaccines).

All these non pharmacological interventions are just bandaids.

I don't think anyone disputes that vaccines are better but as of today we don't have one.

I didn't say just vaccines. I said pharmacological interventions, which are more than just vaccines. No one worries about a disease if it can be treated. There are two approved drugs so far, with a third under emergency use authorization review right now. These are the way out (with an eventual vaccine afterwards).

But again, nobody is arguing against that ideal scenario.

You compared lockdowns to a bandaid, and I agree. We need bandaids sometimes until we get proper treatment.

Given the rise of "zero covid" ideas, which are unfeasible in the long run or even medium term (even with New Zealand's success, all it takes is an error... and of course, we all make mistakes), some countries are mistaking lockdowns for treatments.

OTOH, I'm not aware, at least in the EU (where I am located) of large pharmacological efforts sponsored by governments: most of the results have come, for good or bad, from the USA's Warp Speed or the UK. Yes, BNTech and CureVac are German, but they are exceptions, rather than the rule.

It isn't even proven that lockdowns can actually save lives, although the last study touching this among a whole load of other risk factors (from U of Toronto) can be now considered old (data up to early May).

Totally impossible. It will always return and resurge if there is little common immunity. There is literally no way to confine it indefinitely and any measure to seek to do so would be unreasonable and never actually work anyway for this particular disease.

I think where you're tripping up is the "indefinitely" part. The idea is to buy some time.

> The idea is to buy some time.

It has been 8 months. That ship has sailed

In the scale of vaccinations that's a veritable tick of the second hand on the clock.

In the scale of destroying the lives of billions of people it was a pretty efficient tick

I'm not sure of your number or the actual impact, but yes, it's going to cost something whether you do it or not.

I guess some people just want to see the world eviscerated by this, and some don't.

That's a false dichotomy. This is obviously a balance, and someone will be upset (or sick or worse) no matter what choices are made.

I'll say this - all of the resulting pains are temporary except one. Maybe we should continue to be thoughtful of that as we battle what is a temporary struggle.

It's not a false dichotomy.some people are indeed happy to see our way of life destroyed.

That's really not a good faith argument.

It's a dire situation with no good solution. Ascribing grand malice diminishes that. It's reductionist.

Perhaps revisit the start of this discussion.

Lockdown will not frustrate the virus regarding any long term objective.

> Perhaps revisit the start of this discussion.

For what? People who side on curtailing a public health crisis do not want the economy to collapse.

To claim a lockdown is ineffective is to deny the transmissivity of airborne viruses.

> To claim a lockdown is ineffective is to deny the transmissivity of airborne viruses.

Good thing I didn't claim that then

Reply on news.ycombinator.com