Conversation

1) There've been a lot of short-sighted strategies to fight COVID-19. Many have been talked about a lot. But I think there's always been a fundamental, unanswered question even for the most heralded approaches.
6
45
2) People generally regard Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, and (later on) South Korea as examples of success. And so far they have in fact done a great job of minimizing cases while not having to shut down.
1
4
3) But it's hard to keep COVID-19 from spreading unless the whole world is suppressing it. HK/Taiwain/Singapore/etc. are seeing this now--after initially controlling it, new visitors brought new cases. They've seen a spike in recent cases, almost all from immigration.
1
8
5) But you can only do that for so long. And for those regions in particular, travel is a really important part of the economy. Shutting off immigration for a few weeks and locking down is one thing. But as soon as you lift the bans, you risk re-re-introducting COVID-19.
1
9
6) In some sense it sucks and isn't fair--they've done a great job by most standards, but because the rest of the world doesn't have their shit together, they'll keep getting infected over and over again.
1
13
7) But it's also probably the reality, and begs the question: what's the end game here?
1
11
8) If the end game is that the world successfully kills off COVID-19 in the next few weeks, then great. But if instead the endgame is something like like a drawn-out, year-long dance that's halfway between suppression and flattening the curve, they're in a tough position.
1
8
9) Can Hong Kong really make it a year without allowing anyone in from the outside world? What are the costs of that?
2
9
Replying to
It depends on how reliable the tests are. The worry is that some people can be pre-symptomatic, come back clean on most tests, but still be carriers; or just generally that you can get false negatives. And part of the problem is that if _anyone_ gets through it can spread.