This is in no way relevant to my point. You brought up three countries that have nearly eliminated the virus from their land, while overlooking the single most important prerequisite in all three cases.

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.

No it wouldn't. You ignored his point entirely, which is that even if we did manage to further lock down our borders, it does nothing to stop community transmissions. Those countries you listed weren't able to control the virus through strong border control, they did so through strong controls over community transmission.

Which should've been obvious, considering the initial transmissions in South Korea came from a cult.

>You ignored his point entirely, which is that even if we did manage to further lock down our borders, it does nothing to stop community transmissions.

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.