Global problem, global solution?

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Given human activity crosses borders it doesn't seem like there is any value in solving this country by country. There are huge inconsistencies in policy and culture which a virus doesn't respect. We will end up surfing mini waves of lockdowns and easings, causing much more damage to lives and livelihoods than can be tolerated.

The rules are inadequate, so energy should be invested in a solution above any sort of moralising that kids are out having fun or that people are going on holiday. If it's permitted people will do it. So let's focus on a nuclear option.

If we want to get serious about beating this in lieu of an effective vaccine, it strikes me we should have a 3 week (or whichever is deemed a comfortable margin) global lockdown barring only essential services and those with care needs. Full quarantine, confined to quarters. Where possible those services should set up bio bubbles to reduce commuting. All staff running those essential services should then be quarantined for the same period when that finishes and replaced by those who were in the lockdown who then pass a covid test and get sterilised.

Then we should test everyone at the end of that period. Then upon receiving the results we should proceed slowly to reopen things.

The core of this idea is with hardly anyone for the virus to transmit to, it will die out over that period of time. There won't be active particles on surfaces, in the air or carried among the population.

Should this be a subject for the UN via a resolution? Are we not even talking about this option because it is simply unrealistic? What's so good about the alternatives that we aren't discussing this? Surely any thoughts of civil disobedience would be minimised if people could see this was a global effort.

Anyway, now time to trash this idea below:

[confettiinmyhair]

If the virus has sewed further division in the United Kingdom, and caused spying and attempts to buy up vaccines and medical supplies from certain countries, then I cannot see collaboration between international governments. This would have to come from the scientific  community in the name of humanity.

[BlodwynPig]

It would be easier to develop a particle dye that could be sprayed over large areas that illuminates the virus particle and the infected than do that. I don't disagree with it, but a global scale action is nigh on impossible, even considering that the prevalence may be in the low 10s percentage wise.

[Twit 2]

Shoulders, you're using logic and intelligence and big-picture thinking. It won't happen, because TCIC (the cunts in charge) do. not. give. a. fuck.

[katzenjammer]

Trouble is they'll always be someone that thinks he's ok to go down the pub or for long walks thereby ruining it for everyone, eh? :)

[Non Stop Dancer]

Good luck with that.

[Uncle TechTip]

Trouble is they'll always be someone that thinks he's ok to go down the pub or for long walks thereby ruining it for everyone, eh? :)

How about we shoot dead on sight, by the military who'll be delivering all the food? Double whammy of eliminating all the terminally objectionable.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

The cunts in charge, even if we accept they largely only care about money, surely don't want the hassle and economic damage either? They don't want embarrassment let alone revolutions which may spring from the waves of economic shock that destroy the global economy from this current whack-a-mole, oh-no, the entire stall and mallet has become a-mole strategy.

So an indeterminate amount of time spent in a sort of viral purgatory or 3 weeks of collective effort.

Trouble is they'll always be someone that thinks he's ok to go down the pub or for long walks thereby ruining it for everyone, eh? :)

Yep I'm factoring in inevitable civil disobedience. But even with that, this is the closest we have to a factory reset and will buy us several months.

[JesusAndYourBush]

Given human activity crosses borders it doesn't seem like there is any value in solving this country by country. There are huge inconsistencies in policy and culture which a virus doesn't respect. We will end up surfing mini waves of lockdowns and easings, causing much more damage to lives and livelihoods than can be tolerated.

The rules are inadequate, so energy should be invested in a solution above any sort of moralising that kids are out having fun or that people are going on holiday. If it's permitted people will do it. So let's focus on a nuclear option.

If we want to get serious about beating this in lieu of an effective vaccine, it strikes me we should have a 3 week (or whichever is deemed a comfortable margin) global lockdown barring only essential services and those with care needs. Full quarantine, confined to quarters. Where possible those services should set up bio bubbles to reduce commuting. All staff running those essential services should then be quarantined for the same period when that finishes and replaced by those who were in the lockdown who then pass a covid test and get sterilised.

Then we should test everyone at the end of that period. Then upon receiving the results we should proceed slowly to reopen things.

The core of this idea is with hardly anyone for the virus to transmit to, it will die out over that period of time. There won't be active particles on surfaces, in the air or carried among the population.

Should this be a subject for the UN via a resolution? Are we not even talking about this option because it is simply unrealistic? What's so good about the alternatives that we aren't discussing this? Surely any thoughts of civil disobedience would be minimised if people could see this was a global effort.

Anyway, now time to trash this idea below:

I've been thinking the same thing over the last few days.  Everybody makes sure they have 2 weeks worth of food (or 3?)... everybody stays in.  What's the incubation period? 2 weeks?  After 2 weeks those who had covid have either recovered with no symptoms or mild symptoms, those more serious cases have been sent to hospital where they've either recovered or died.  After a couple more weeks if people were able to stick to the rules there'd be no more covid.  We could have had all this done and dusted back in April.  Too simplistic maybe?

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Well you need to make a plan for keeping infrastructure and essential services going, but the overlap idea I made above seems achievable.

There's also the issue of civil disobedience but I think if properly marketed that could be minimised.

It won't reduce deaths or infections to zero but it would put us in a fantastic position to be able to track and deal with any reinfection. Seems well worth the economic damage versus this current on/off purgatory.

[evilcommiedictator]

It also helps if you're an island, time to dump NI once and for all eh

[Non Stop Dancer]

I've been thinking the same thing over the last few days.  Everybody makes sure they have 2 weeks worth of food (or 3?)... everybody stays in.  What's the incubation period? 2 weeks?  After 2 weeks those who had covid have either recovered with no symptoms or mild symptoms, those more serious cases have been sent to hospital where they've either recovered or died.  After a couple more weeks if people were able to stick to the rules there'd be no more covid.  We could have had all this done and dusted back in April.  Too simplistic maybe?

I would like to see an explanation of why that wouldn't work because to a layman with my complete lack of understanding of epidemiology, it seems that it would be the route one solution.

[dissolute ocelot]

^ That is basically what the Chinese did in infected areas: everybody confined to their apartments, food supplied, residents committees in big plastic suits checking up on people, anyone who transgressed even slightly forced to lock down for longer. It worked pretty well.

It does require both stern policing and good organisation.

[Zetetic]

Not everyone's job is bullshit, is the first challenge. Not insurmountable.

[The Mollusk]

Would it not be even simpler to just get out there and TWAT IT

Honestly surprised I'm the first one to suggest this. Violence doesn't solve a lot of things but it would solve this. Oh, what's that? Some flimsy particles trying to get in my lungs? Try getting in my lungs when I hold my breath and fucking deck you with my fist. Try it, particles.

[Mr Farenheit]

I would like to see an explanation of why that wouldn't work because to a layman with my complete lack of understanding of epidemiology, it seems that it would be the route one solution.

It doesn't work for people in extreme poverty who wouldn't be able to buy 2 weeks worth of food. They have to work every day to survive. I thinks that's supposed to be 10% of the world nowadays. Not sure what you do with displaced people.
Would need a massive effort to set it all up.

[Chedney Honks]

Hypothetically, there's enough money and food for everyone on Earth to lockdown for three weeks.

As Zetetic said, genuinely essential workers (water, electricity, farming, etc.) would have to continue. As soon as there's any breach, the whole sacrifice is invalidated.

The main issue is that people who get sick would still need to be transported to hospital and treated, unless we also said that the greater sacrifice for the common good is to say that if you have it, you have to accept the consequences in your own home. At that point, I can't get on board with it.

I actually think the current situation is probably the best whereby America gets more and more cunted every day.

[chveik]

you'd have to end capitalism first.

[monkfromhavana]

Think of all the "one world government" types working themselves into a lather about this.

I've yet to understand why a one world government would necessarily be so bad (you could still have local and national elections and be allowed to have specific policies for your country).

[Non Stop Dancer]

It doesn't work for people in extreme poverty who wouldn't be able to buy 2 weeks worth of food. They have to work every day to survive. I thinks that's supposed to be 10% of the world nowadays. Not sure what you do with displaced people.
Would need a massive effort to set it all up.

Yep good point. Surely that needn't be an issue in the likes of UK, any EU member state, the US etc?

[Non Stop Dancer]

Think of all the "one world government" types working themselves into a lather about this.

I've yet to understand why a one world government would necessarily be so bad (you could still have local and national elections and be allowed to have specific policies for your country).

Agreed. It's like when people complain about the EU "wanting to form a European army" OK, well that would be good wouldn't it? It would make eg the likelihood of the UK going to war with a fellow member state about as plausible as Plymouth going to war with Coventry. Not to mention making us a collectively more powerful fighting force against the US and China.