Originally Posted by
ezefllying
Here’s my question:
In the West, we’re talking about flattening the curve with the assumption that the total number of infections won’t appreciably differ from an unmitigated outbreak, but rather will only be spaced out over a longer period. At least without some pharmaceutical intervention.
But, if its numbers are accurate, China seems to have quashed the disease, and the country seems to be acting as though that success is more or less permanent (barring reintroduction from foreign arrivals).
So: How is it that China has, arguably, managed to defeat the virus without achieving anything close to herd immunity? There are 1.4 billion Chinese citizens. 80K were infected. That’s 1 in 20,000.
As I see it, the only explanations are: (a) China somehow squelched every single case of the virus domestically, (b) China’s reporting highly inaccurate numbers, (c) there will be flare-ups in the coming weeks and China will have to re-lock down whole regions, or (d) some other epidemiological dynamic is at play that’s preventing resurgence.
My biggest fear is (c). What do you think is going on?
I really DO believe that China has gotten on top of their domestic outbreak, but yes, the entire population remains vulnerable, as I've mentioned before. So the country and population is at risk of new flare-ups, especially from imported cases (and some undocumented domestic cases). That's why the draconian quarantine measures for incoming pax...inbound flights to China are packed full (of expat Chinese)...I would guess outbounds are going empty...
China needs to keep this up until there's a vaccine, as do any other countries e.g. S. Korea, that are pursuing similar strategies. BBC reported today that UK is now going to attempt (I doubt they will be successful with the measures they've introduced) the same, but also acknowledges that if so, measures would need to stay in place for 5-18 months...
tb