When it comes to complete elimination, you leave out the most important ingredient: all three countries have fantastic border control, thanks to geography in two cases, and an extremist neighbor in the third.
Edit: In other words, we can strive to reduce community transmission, but achieving the specific results found in the three you mentioned would also require a radical change in how we handle our borders.
Which should've been obvious, considering the initial transmissions in South Korea came from a cult.
Your statement on the relationship between border control and non-border community transmission is obvious and irrelevant to my statement. Why are you belaboring the obvious?
>Those countries you listed weren't able to control the virus through strong border control
The topic of the comment I responded to was the rapid near elimination of the virus from a country. This was done in the context of fantastically strong border control, which [during this time frame] is a prerequisite to achieving that goal. Now you have changed the topic to "controlling" the virus, which is a relatively vague term and concept.
We are already seeing the damage because a number of meatpacking plants had to go off-line when a substantial part of their workforce was ill and could not report to work, yet many citizens advocate for even lighter restrictions. Nothing of this makes any sense.