Science desk
< March 15	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 17 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 16

So what's with governments response to the corona virus?

Are some countries trying to stop it completely and have as few infected as possible while others are trying to have the populace gradually infected to build up immunity (UK)? What does the WHO want? 137.205.1.87 (talk) 00:45, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a public policy question, and not a scientific one. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 01:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From the science (or maybe math) angle, it is hoped that the many closures will delay enough cases so as to not overwhelm the health care systems, i.e. to "flatten the curve". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:22, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For more on "flatten the curve", see:

"These simulations show how to flatten the coronavirus growth curve". Washington Post.
Wilson, Mark (13 March 2020). "The story behind 'flatten the curve,' the defining chart of the coronavirus". Fast Company.

(etc.) 2606:A000:1126:28D:9CD1:2A09:62D0:11F5 (talk) 04:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese intervention let do a drop in R_0 from 3.9 to 0.32. Count Iblis (talk) 06:04, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given the nature of their organisation and international politics, the WHO is generally going to be circumspect about what they say about another country, especially a large powerful one, is doing. However IMO if you read what the WHO have said in the past e.g. when they confirmed that this was a pandemic, it seems likely they don't really agree with the UK approach. See e.g. this non RS [1]. The UK approach has of course received a lot of criticism from some others e.g. [2].

More generally though, while there seems to be almost universal agreement on the need to flatten the curve and ensure health care services don't become overwhelmed by the number of cases, there seems to be somewhat less agreement on whether the pandemic can still be contained. The WHO seems to think it can, and of course China, South Korea and also Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong are suggested as examples of that. Success with some previous cases, SARS-CoV-1, and to a lesser extent other outbreaks like EMC/2012 and Ebola other exampls. But the alternative view is that the given the nature of how the virus spreads, and that SARS-CoV-2 is now so widespread including having reached countries with poor health care systems that it's too late.

While China may be having success in stopping the spread, it's just going to come back as they relax their controls. And it's not realistic for these controls to last indefinitely since they're so disruptive to everyday life and society, and people are eventually going to start rioting as they start to run out of food etc. [3] [4] Even holding out for a vaccine, which at best is probably in 18 months, is not realistic.

There are additional concerns. For example, we don't know how effective any immunity will be long term. It could be this the new SARS-CoV-2 will have enough antigenic shift that it becomes endemic, i.e. more like seasonal influenza and some other coronaviruses, continually spreading. [5] What that means is unclear, does it and will it have a greater mortality rate and treatment cost long term? That risk is an added reason to try and stop this, beyond the deaths this initial outbreak will cause.

Given there are still so many unknowns (including the infamous unknown unknowns), the differences between the current situation and anything we have dealt with in recent times, and the nature of science, there is going to be strong amount of disagreement even among experts. As I mentioned at the beginning, the WHO public stance still seems to be strongly of the view that the outbreak can be contained. The UK's view seems to be that it cannot be. Although to be clear, there are still some who adopt that view, but view the UK's plans as flawed.

Then there are the non experts. For example, in NZ a group has been calling for school closures. [6] However AFAWK, there is no ongoing community spread in NZ. It could be it's simply undetected, as has happened in plenty of countries besides NZ, in which cases maybe the proposals are sensible. But assuming there is indeed no ongoing community spread, shutting down schools is incredible disruptive so the long term plan with such a proposal seems somewhat unclear.

Nil Einne (talk) 11:41, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shutting down schools puts thousands of teenagers in shopping centres, mixing with kids from other schools. Doesn't appeal to me as a way to limit the spread of disease. HiLo48 (talk) 09:00, 18 March 2020 (UTC) [reply]

In the latest WHO press conference, one of the key messages was "test test test" and that testing of suspected cases was the "backbone of stopping the spread", along with contact tracing and isolation of contactees of anyone who tested positive. [7] [8] I'm sure sources will emerge comparing this advice to what the UK suggested they will do. Nil Einne (talk) 16:37, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grauniad "When I first heard about this [UK plan], I could not believe it. I research and teach the evolution and epidemiology of infectious disease at Harvard’s Chan School of Public Health. My colleagues here in the US, even as they are reeling from the stumbling response of the Donald Trump administration to the crisis, assumed that reports of the UK policy were satire – an example of the wry humour for which the country is famed. But they are all too real." 2601:648:8202:96B0:386A:A40C:EBB1:ACC0 (talk) 19:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UK has changed the strategy now. manya (talk) 08:51, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]