Ok, I accept that.
The problem with COVID-19 as far as I understand it compared to SARS-CoV is that with COVID-19 you first become contagious and then you start showing symptoms. That tiny little difference, first the danger, then the warning instead of the other way around is why it is going to be impossible to eradicate it, and in fact why this was likely impossible from the beginning.
But we could have massively slowed down the initial transmission (at severe economic cost but probably not nearly as bad as what we have to contend with now), buying time to get those vaccines developed and out there resulting in a much smaller first wave and subsequently fewer lives lost and people severely ill.
> Even if the Western world did, then what would your plan be for Africa? What about the slums of Bangladesh and other areas in SE Asia?
Yes, this was a global problem from day #1. But that is something that we don't seem to universally recognize even today.
> Deer so far are the only known species where it is spreading epidemically in them in the wild, but there's likely to be others.
ok
> We probably don't even know exhaustively all the species in the world that it might infect through having similar enough ACE-2 receptors, and you can't miss one.
The parallels with computer security are interesting here. Indeed, a single species missed and it would be matter of time before the whole circus would start over again. But at this point in time I do not believe there is a viable path to controlling the virus in the human population.
> And we've never eradicated a virus that has an animal reservoir.
Ok.
I honestly doubt it. We could have blunted the impact but it was out of Wuhan and in Italy before any doctors in Wuhan even knew about it or suspected. We were never going to lock down the entire world the way that China locked down. Even if the Western world did, then what would your plan be for Africa? What about the slums of Bangladesh and other areas in SE Asia?
We fucked it all up and a lot of people died who didn't need to, but I doubt the virus was ever stoppable starting from the first day it was even suspected.
> How much transfer is there in animal populations? Do we have any idea of the size of the populations affected?
Estimates are that around 1/3rd of the white tailed deer are infected and it readily transmits from deer to deer. According to the CDC:
> Recent experimental research shows that many mammals, including cats, dogs, bank voles, ferrets, fruit bats, hamsters, mink, pigs, rabbits, racoon dogs, tree shrews, and white-tailed deer can be infected with the virus. Cats, ferrets, fruit bats, hamsters, racoon dogs, and white-tailed deer can also spread the infection to other animals of the same species in laboratory settings.
Deer so far are the only known species where it is spreading epidemically in them in the wild, but there's likely to be others. We probably don't even know exhaustively all the species in the world that it might infect through having similar enough ACE-2 receptors, and you can't miss one.
And we've never eradicated a virus that has an animal reservoir. Successful eradication is only something you can really attempt if you don't have an animal reservoir (or you need to do something about the reservoir like wiping out the mosquitoes that feed on humans).