> Edit: To those downvoting, I'll just say that my statement is factual, so argue the facts.
I wonder if the downvotes were caused by the phrasing of this statement:
> Most people and countries don't have this goal.
At first I thought you were saying that people didn't actually want to stop the virus in its tracks.
It took me a minute to realize that you're saying people have accepted full-stoppage-in-tracks as being infeasible, and therefore don't consider it an attainable goal.
> At first I thought you were saying that people didn't actually want to stop the virus in its tracks.
No, I think that's precisely what they were saying. I don't think that this is unattainable - I think it would have a greater economic cost, particularly to the wealthy, than many countries are willing to bear. It's not unattainable - it would cost them more than those lives are perceived as being worth. Big conceptual difference.
It's not only economic cost. To get results like in china you have to be (like) china. It's easy to sell drastic measures to the population if the infection (and death) numbers look scary. But if the numbers stagnate at low values nobody is going to accept drastic measures. You would need to fight against your own population to stop the virus altogether. And even if you achive this, the virus will return (tourist/travelers).
I wonder if the downvotes were caused by the phrasing of this statement:
> Most people and countries don't have this goal.
At first I thought you were saying that people didn't actually want to stop the virus in its tracks.
It took me a minute to realize that you're saying people have accepted full-stoppage-in-tracks as being infeasible, and therefore don't consider it an attainable goal.