Which brings us to the current COVID-19 pandemic...
Different countries have chosen different methods of dealing with the virus. Some countries - Sweden being the foremost example - have opted to go for herd immunity. This is where enough of the population is infected and most recover, presumably developing a natural resistance to the virus. Yes there will be a significant number of deaths, particularly among the elderly and people with weak immune systems. Sweden's modelling assumes that for every confirmed case of COVID-19, there are at least 75 undetected cases. When new infection hotspots arise, the virus doesn't have the opportunity to travel too far, because most people have developed the resistance - essentially stopping the virus spreading. Yes, some people will still get the virus, but its spread will be contained.
Other countries such as Australia, which caught the virus early, have opted for early stringent social distancing and lock-downs. This has had the effect of containing the spread of the virus. By keeping the transmission rate at less than 1, the virus will eventually die off. The transmission rate is - on average - how many people a person with the virus infects. If an infected person infects - on average - less than one other person, then the infection hotspot will die out because the propagation of the virus will quickly diminish.
Countries which have been hard-hit with the virus, I suspect, are somewhere in between. They are countries such as Italy, Spain, the UK, Russia, the USA, etc. They have enacted social distancing measures, but have a large number of infections. I also suspect that their undetected infection rate is similar to Sweden's. So they've probably developed a degree of herd immunity, and future outbreaks will be less severe.
Countries like Australia, I believe, have been too effective with their social distancing measures. Why too effective? Because there has been essentially no herd immunity developed. By shutting down the country for a few months, the virus has been contained. But what happens when life goes back to "normal" and borders are re-opened? There will be more infections. And because there is little herd immunity (let's call it community immunity), the consequences of these outbreaks could be just as severe as the first one. To contains the virus (again), authorities will have to shut down the country (again). There will not be the required community immunity to buffer the spread of the infection. Australian authorities are already talking about a second and third wave of the virus. If the same lock-down measures are enforced for each wave, I put it to you the economy will be destroyed! And what if there are fourth, fifth, and sixth waves of infection??
You see, while allowing a country to develop community immunity, there will necessarily be a higher death rate initially. But enough people will develop resistance to the virus to make future outbreaks far less severe. The transmission rate will be kept less than 1 naturally, because most people will not get sick even if exposed to the virus. But countries that have adopted Australia's model are in a far more precarious situation because the only way they can keep the transmission rate below 1 is to socially isolate the population every time there is an outbreak. This is not a sustainable solution.
We have to invoke the Spock Principle here... the good of the many outweighs the good of the few... short term pain for long term gain. Yes there will be a higher death rate initially, but the population as a whole will benefit, until a vaccine is developed. In the meantime, we can protect the old and vulnerable, for example by having additional restrictions on retirement homes. This will obviously not be popular, but it is one way we can sort of have our cake and eat it too.
No comments:
Post a Comment