Eradication of Covid is a fantasy

[BabyBoomer50s]

“Humanity’s unimpressive track record of deliberately eradicating contagious diseases warns us that lockdown measures, however draconian, can’t work. Thus far, the number of such diseases so eliminated stands at two—and one of these, rinderpest, affected only even-toed ungulates. The lone human infectious disease we’ve deliberately eradicated is smallpox. The bacterium responsible for the Black Death, the 14th-century outbreak of bubonic plague, is still with us, causing infections even in the U.S.

“While the eradication of smallpox—a virus 100 times as deadly as Covid—was an impressive feat, it shouldn’t be used as a precedent for Covid. For one thing, unlike smallpox, which was carried only by humans, SARS-CoV-2 is also carried by animals, which some hypothesize can spread the disease to humans. We will need to rid ourselves of dogs, cats, mink, bats and more to get to zero.

“For another, the smallpox vaccine is incredibly effective at preventing infection and severe disease, even after exposure to disease, with protection lasting five to 10 years. The Covid vaccines are far less effective at preventing spread.

“And smallpox eradication required a concerted global effort lasting decades and unprecedented cooperation among nations. Nothing like this is possible today, especially if it requires a perpetual lockdown in every country on earth. That’s simply too much to ask, especially of poor countries, where lockdowns have proved devastatingly harmful to public health. If even one nonhuman reservoir or a single country or region that fails to adopt the program, zero-Covid would fail.”



https://www.wsj.com/articles/zero-c...lia-new-zealand-11628101945?mod=hp_opin_pos_3

 

[pecksniff]

“Humanity’s unimpressive track record of deliberately eradicating contagious diseases warns us that lockdown measures, however draconian, can’t work.

"Eradicating" is setting the bar too high. Lockdown measures help. They save lives.

 

[RoryN]

https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?p=93523870&highlight=covid#post93523870

3/3/21:

Florida did Covid right.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?p=93523870&highlight=covid#post93523870

3/3/21:

Yes, they did and still are. Schools, businesses, and individuals are free to make their own choices. No lockdowns, no mandates. It’s why so many are moving there.

 

[ll74]

The people who believe that's our goal, with the treatments/precautions we're taking, need a reality check.

Our efforts should be twofold:
1. Reduce cases of serious illness from the virus and its variants
2. Reduce the infection rate of the virus overall

Once the rate of hospitalization and mutation both decrease, the above should reduce and stabilize. We're just not there yet.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Yes, they did and still are. Schools, businesses, and individuals are free to make their own choices. No lockdowns, no mandates. It’s why so many are moving there.

Lets see what the trend is year over year at the end of say this year and revisit it next year. There should be a clear pattern if you're not just buying into propaganda.

Course if we actually pass fifteen an hour its gonna be wacky few years for immigration. Can't wait.

 

[pecksniff]

Yes, they did and still are. Schools, businesses, and individuals are free to make their own choices. No lockdowns, no mandates. It’s why so many are moving there.

That's not doing it right. Doing it right would result in a low number of covid cases, which Florida does not have.

 

[ll74]

Yes, they did and still are. Schools, businesses, and individuals are free to make their own choices. No lockdowns, no mandates. It’s why so many are moving there.

Can't be locked down if the hospital keeps its doors open, #amiright?

 

[RoryN]

Yes, they did and still are. Schools, businesses, and individuals are free to make their own choices. No lockdowns, no mandates. It’s why so many are moving there.

You said they "did COVID right". But you don't mention COVID, above. (Why not? We know why not.)

So, that's a non-answer = fail. Thanks for playing.

 

[Rightguide]

Life without a virus is impossible. There has always been viruses in the environment. Achieving a virus free environment is impossible.

 

[pecksniff]

Life without a virus is impossible. There has always been viruses in the environment. Achieving a virus free environment is impossible.

Yes, we all know that. That does not make disease-containment measures pointless. And that is all we are talking about here -- disease-containment measures, not statist plots against freedom.

 

[Rightguide]

Yes, we all know that. That does not make disease-containment measures pointless. And that is all we are talking about here -- disease-containment measures, not statist plots against freedom.

Nothing Biden is doing is going to contain the disease. There are some things the government isn't empowered to do, period.

 

[pecksniff]

Nothing Biden is doing is going to contain the disease.

It will if it includes strong encouragement of vaccination, masking, etc.

There are some things the government isn't empowered to do, period.

Nothing in the Constitution is against any disease-containment measures taken in the past two years.

Our society has always accepted drastic measures, up to and including quarantined homes with warning-flags on them, to contain typhoid, cholera, or anything else dangerous and contagious. What makes covid any different?

 

[Rightguide]

It will if it includes strong encouragement of vaccination, masking, etc.



Nothing in the Constitution is against any disease-containment measures taken in the past two years.

Not true. You will find nothing in the Constitution or federal statutes that authorizes the CDC or the President to seize private property without compensation. There is no statutory power for Governors or the federal government to mandate vaccinations on the citizenry. The Covid vaccine is still classified as an experimental drug, and has only been authorized as such.

Experimental COVID Shots Cannot Be Mandated
Mar 9, 2021 Updated Mar 9, 2021

ORLANDO, FL -- Federal law provides that at least until a vaccine is fully approved by the FDA, individuals must have the option to accept or decline the experimental drug.

On March 27, 2020, the Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary declared that circumstances exist justifying the authorization of emergency use (EUA) of drugs and biological products for COVID-19. That means people must be told the risks and benefits, and they have the right to decline a medication that is not fully licensed. The same section of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act that authorizes the FDA to grant EUA also requires the secretary of Health and Human Services to “ensure that individuals to whom the product is administered are informed … of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product.” All of the COVID-19 mRNA injections (Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna) or vaccines (Johnson & Johnson and Astra Zeneca) have received only EAU authorization and not full FDA approval.

When the FDA grants EUA for a vaccine, many questions about the product cannot be answered because the testing data is unavailable. Therefore, when Congress granted the authority to issue EUAs, it mandated that individuals must be allowed to decide for themselves whether to receive an EUA product. The FDA and Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) considered this fundamental requirement of choice important enough that even during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, they reinforced that policy decision when issuing their guidance related to the experimental “vaccines.”

Dr. Amanda Cohn, executive secretary of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, was asked if COVID-19 vaccination can be required. Dr. Cohn responded that under an EUA, “vaccines are not allowed to be mandatory. So, early in this vaccination phase, individuals will have to be consented [sic] and they won’t be able to be mandatory.”

The EUAs for both the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna mRNA experimental injections and any other EUA vaccine require fact sheets to be given to vaccination providers and recipients. These fact sheets make clear that getting the vaccine is optional. For example, the one for recipients states, “It is your choice to receive or not receive the COVID-19 vaccine,” and if “you decide to not receive it, it will not change your standard of medical care.”

https://www.thedesertreview.com/hea...cle_89b901ae-8126-11eb-a78d-07c0c7e926df.html

 

[pecksniff]

Not true. You will find nothing in the Constitution or federal statutes that authorizes the CDC or the President to seize private property without compensation.

Which is in no sense what they're doing. What they're doing is more analogous to putting a typhoid flag on a house, back in the day. Which was constitutional.

The Fifth Amendment does not guarantee the value of your property cannot be reduced by government action.

 

[Rightguide]

Which is in no sense what they're doing. What they're doing is more analogous to putting a typhoid flag on a house, back in the day. Which was constitutional.

The Fifth Amendment does not guarantee the value of your property cannot be reduced by government action.

The government has "taken" that property, the rights of private property away from owners, without compensation. The SCOTUS just ruled this moratorium was illegal two weeks ago, for God's sake.

 

[Rightguide]

This from Matt Ridley, somebody who knows a lot about this subject:


"VIRULENT" DOES NOT MEAN "INFECTIOUS"

Published on: Tuesday, 29 June, 2021
Respiratory viruses tend to evolve to be more transmissible but less virulent
This blog post was adapted from this Twitter thread:

Articles often claim that the Delta variant is more virulent, e.g. "Citing the spread of the more virulent Delta coronavirus variant in the United Kingdom". Earlier in the year the same was said about the Alpha (Kent) variant, that it was more "virulent".

That was untrue. Virulent means "harmful", not "infectious".

If anything, the evidence suggests that the Delta variant may be less virulent, but more transmissible/infectious—although it is hard to be sure this is true, given that the vulnerable old are now protected by vaccines.

"The suggestion that the Indian variant is more pathogenic needs to be taken with a big dose of salt. The same was initially suggested for the Kent variant but was later shown not to be true" writes Professor Ian Jones.

Respiratory viruses tend to evolve to be more transmissible but less virulent: they do better if you go out and about meeting people. This is not true of insect-borne or water-borne viruses, which don't care how sick you are: insects or water do the going out about about for you.

Much more here:

https://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/virulent-does-not-mean-infectious/

 

[pecksniff]

The government has "taken" that property, the rights of private property away from owners, without compensation. The SCOTUS just ruled this moratorium was illegal two weeks ago, for God's sake.

Cite? And, was that ruling based on the 5th Amendment? Which is a thing of much narrower application than you think it is.

 

[pecksniff]

This from Matt Ridley, somebody who knows a lot about this subject:


"VIRULENT" DOES NOT MEAN "INFECTIOUS"

That is completely irrelevant to anything under discussion here.

 

[ll74]

Not true. You will find nothing in the Constitution or federal statutes that authorizes the CDC or the President to seize private property without compensation. There is no statutory power for Governors or the federal government to mandate vaccinations on the citizenry. The Covid vaccine is still classified as an experimental drug, and has only been authorized as such.

Experimental COVID Shots Cannot Be Mandated
Mar 9, 2021 Updated Mar 9, 2021

The courts have ruled differently recently

Either way, they'll be approved in September and this point will be moot.

 

[pecksniff]

Why does anybody have any objection to vaccine mandates? To what concept of "freedom" is this even relevant?

 

[Adre]

It continues to amaze how many Litsters are infectious disease experts. I mean, who the fuck knew?

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Yes, they did and still are. Schools, businesses, and individuals are free to make their own choices. No lockdowns, no mandates. It’s why so many are moving there.

How many are moving there exactly? Is the housing market exploding or something?

It continues to amaze how many Litsters are infectious disease experts. I mean, who the fuck knew?

All these top-tier scientific beautiful minds, squandering their God-given gifts every day squabbling on a porn board. You hate to see it.

 

[Rightguide]

Cite? And, was that ruling based on the 5th Amendment? Which is a thing of much narrower application than you think it is.

No it wasn't but it state directly the CDC exceeded its authority in declaring the Moratorium, they denied the request of the realtors only because the moratorium was set to end on July 31. Biden knew this, and he understood the Moratorium was illegal but reinstated it anyway. Here is the wording in the ruling:
Kavanaugh:

“I agree with the District Court and the applicants that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention exceeded its existing statutory authority by issuing a nationwide eviction moratorium,” he wrote. “Because the CDC plans to end the moratorium in only a few weeks, on July 31, and because those few weeks will allow for additional and more orderly distribution of the congressionally appropriated rental assistance funds, I vote at this time to deny the application to vacate the District Court’s stay of its order.”

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett dissented. They wanted it ended immediately.

 

[Cubantripod]

"Eradicating" is setting the bar too high. Lockdown measures help. They save lives.

No they did not. Mortality rates in Florida and California were almost identical. When you consider Florida has a high elderly population, the lockdowns didn't do much. There's no beating the virus or cheating it. You have to let it run its course.