Plan A is how to contain Covid19 until a vaccine or other strong treatment shows up. Plan B is how to deal with Plan A failing, and a substantial fraction (>20%) of the population getting infected. While I’ve mostly
Seems as though group A pays ongoing costs of suppression, and ongoing silver tsunami costs. Probably adds up to more than the costs of having 5 endemic coronaviruses, rather than 4. If an effective vaccine is developed, all are equal again. Treatment and management innovation should make the costs of group B go down. So: why so negative?
My sense is that their strategy conceivably goes beyond that - and I will freely admit that I may be wrong and that one could criticize this strategy (I'm trying to describe it).
The Abbott quick test (and similar competing tests) could also be part of this. If people are tested before and/or after getting on a plane to New Zealand - with a result returned in less than an hour - then the need for a 14 day quarantine goes away.
There's still a hit due to the cost of the test, and some inconvenience as well as uncertainty about the ability to travel. That cost seems manageable relative to the cost of flying to New Zealand from most other countries, however.
You're missing a point. In Taiwan and South Korea they can also shame visitors into wearing masks in public even if some of those same people would be averse to wearing masks in their home countries.
> How can you survive economically if you are locked as a nation for two years?
For immigration you can do quarantine periods. For leisure travel the economy takes a hit. For business travel, replace with video conferencing where possible, otherwise implement quarantine periods augmented with testing.
I assume they are going for suppression because they believe that "buy time through suppression, then easing backed up by detection/tracing, until improved therapies and vaccine are available" has the best shot at minimizing harm to their people.
If herd immnity works, it eliminates the virus just as much as an effective lockdown does. In both cases the reproduction number stays substantially below 1 for a long enough period of time for the virus to die away. In the case of herd immunity, it's for months after the peak. According to this first order understanding countries with different approaches could open to each other.
Of course we don't know if herd immunity will work for long, or how well lockdowns will work, or if the virus can hide at low levels and come back, or if treatments will become available, or if a vaccine will work ever or for long. Everything depends on detail, and it is very hard to predict. Anything with periods of exponential growth are inherently unstable.
"Successful" containment coutries will try to use rapid detection tracing and isolation. This appears to be working in a few places. It is robust so far to at least some level of openness.
That's what perplexes me about countries like New Zealand that claim to have eradicated the virus. Are you going to stay locked for two years for fear of importing the virus? How can you survive economically if you are locked as a nation for two years?
Suppose that I want to visit Franz Josef Glacier in New Zealand. To be able to do that, I need to: a) spend 14 days upon arrival in NZ in quarantineb) then do my visit of 7 days to the Southern Islandc) then upon return to the US spend another 14 days for the American quarantine.
And that assuming that there are commercial flights available. One must love that damn glacier a whole lot to be willing to go through that. I just do not understand why NZ or South Korea go for suppression. What is the way out of it?
Seems as though group A pays ongoing costs of suppression, and ongoing silver tsunami costs. Probably adds up to more than the costs of having 5 endemic coronaviruses, rather than 4. If an effective vaccine is developed, all are equal again. Treatment and management innovation should make the costs of group B go down. So: why so negative?
My sense is that their strategy conceivably goes beyond that - and I will freely admit that I may be wrong and that one could criticize this strategy (I'm trying to describe it).
The Abbott quick test (and similar competing tests) could also be part of this. If people are tested before and/or after getting on a plane to New Zealand - with a result returned in less than an hour - then the need for a 14 day quarantine goes away.
There's still a hit due to the cost of the test, and some inconvenience as well as uncertainty about the ability to travel. That cost seems manageable relative to the cost of flying to New Zealand from most other countries, however.
You're missing a point. In Taiwan and South Korea they can also shame visitors into wearing masks in public even if some of those same people would be averse to wearing masks in their home countries.
> How can you survive economically if you are locked as a nation for two years?
For immigration you can do quarantine periods. For leisure travel the economy takes a hit. For business travel, replace with video conferencing where possible, otherwise implement quarantine periods augmented with testing.
I assume they are going for suppression because they believe that "buy time through suppression, then easing backed up by detection/tracing, until improved therapies and vaccine are available" has the best shot at minimizing harm to their people.
Rapid detection, tracing and isolation. It is working in Taiwan and South Korea.
If herd immnity works, it eliminates the virus just as much as an effective lockdown does. In both cases the reproduction number stays substantially below 1 for a long enough period of time for the virus to die away. In the case of herd immunity, it's for months after the peak. According to this first order understanding countries with different approaches could open to each other.
Of course we don't know if herd immunity will work for long, or how well lockdowns will work, or if the virus can hide at low levels and come back, or if treatments will become available, or if a vaccine will work ever or for long. Everything depends on detail, and it is very hard to predict. Anything with periods of exponential growth are inherently unstable.
"Successful" containment coutries will try to use rapid detection tracing and isolation. This appears to be working in a few places. It is robust so far to at least some level of openness.
That's what perplexes me about countries like New Zealand that claim to have eradicated the virus. Are you going to stay locked for two years for fear of importing the virus? How can you survive economically if you are locked as a nation for two years?
Suppose that I want to visit Franz Josef Glacier in New Zealand. To be able to do that, I need to: a) spend 14 days upon arrival in NZ in quarantineb) then do my visit of 7 days to the Southern Islandc) then upon return to the US spend another 14 days for the American quarantine.
And that assuming that there are commercial flights available. One must love that damn glacier a whole lot to be willing to go through that. I just do not understand why NZ or South Korea go for suppression. What is the way out of it?