Two infectious diseases have successfully been eradicated: smallpox in humans and rinderpest in ruminants. There are four ongoing programs, targeting the human diseases poliomyelitis (polio), yaws, dracunculiasis (Guinea worm), and malaria.
The concept of disease eradication is sometimes confused with disease elimination, which is the reduction of an infectious disease's prevalence in a regional population to zero, or the reduction of the global prevalence to a negligible amount. Further confusion arises from the use of the term 'eradication' to refer to the total removal of a given pathogen from an individual (also known as clearance of an infection), particularly in the context of HIV and certain other viruses where such cures are sought.
The targeting of infectious diseases for eradication is based on narrow criteria, as both biological and technical features determine whether a pathogenic organism is (at least potentially) eradicable. The targeted pathogen must not have a significant non-human (or non-human-dependent) reservoir (or, in the case of animal diseases, the infection reservoir must be an easily identifiable species, as in the case of rinderpest). This requires sufficient understanding of the life cycle and transmission of the pathogen. An efficient and practical intervention (such as a vaccine or antibiotic) must be available to interrupt transmission. Studies of measles in the pre-vaccination era led to the concept of the critical community size, the minimal size of the population below which a pathogen ceases to circulate.[3] The use of vaccination programs before the introduction of an eradication campaign can reduce the susceptible population. The disease to be eradicated should be clearly identifiable, and an accurate diagnostic tool should exist. Economic considerations, as well as societal and political support and commitment, are other crucial factors that determine eradication feasibility.
I have been hearing that we have never eliminated a respiratory virus as an argument against the constant moving of the goalpost for COVID-19 measures. Since I try not to take statements like these as truth without verifying them, I thought this community would be a good one to present the claim to.Are you aware of a respiratory virus that has been eliminated?And as a related question, do you believe it is reasonable and achievable to attempt to eliminate any respiratory virus?
But what would you say the government's goal is with our current virus? Elimination, eradication, or something else?
Similar to the question of eliminating respiratory viruses, do you believe that SARS-CoV-2 specifically is a respiratory virus that can be eliminated/eradicated?
Also, you have probably stated this in other posts but what is your opinion on the current vaccination effort for SARS-CoV-2? It seems to me that it is not unreasonable for people to wait for at least 2 to 5 years of safety data in human trials for a new vaccine technology. Nor does it seem like a wise plan to try and vaccinate the entire global population without said safety data.
I get the impression that there are quite a few people who could never be convinced.
Smallpox can be considered a respiratory virus.
The moving of the goal posts is not in response to the disease but to the demands of freedom. If the whole human population just locked down for three weeks, the progress of the disease would likely be controlled, but humans just don't do that very well. Therefore, restrictions are raised and applied with a mind towards maximizing freedom traded against the disease's progress.
It's not so much that I'm trusting the government officials or organizations. It's simply very hard for me to believe that so many companies would actively falsify data on this large a scale, give the resulting vaccine out to so many people, and for their cover not to be immediately blown after the first million doses were injected.
Hell, even cases like J&J and AstraZeneca where there were side effects found after the fact only came up when the population getting those shots increased dramatically above clinical trials numbers.
As for scientific dissent, I will say that I've heard some intriguing arguments about the vaccine and the potential harms it could cause (at least from one or two people - honestly, the vast majority either don't know what they're talking about or are presenting something so rare and specific to very different viruses that it barely warrants discussion), though I also understand that they're fighting a PR war as much as anything else.
Not saying that censorship is warranted (if anything, it tends to give many of these people far more credence than they deserve), but I can at least understand why they're doing it.
There is essentially no risk to human health presented by either JJ or AZ vaccines. Claims otherwise are frivolous.
Are you talking about Brett Weinstein? If not, who?I've seen a lot of nonsense from people who argue that vaccines are encouraging the formation of "deadly variants." That, too, is in the category of vaccines-cause-autism level misinformation.
I agree that the risks of those two vaccines is essentially null, just felt the need to point out that, even at that level, a huge effort was put out to test those concerns.
Honestly couldn’t recall his name when I initially posted this, but that’s the one! Guy has some good points, though I have misgivings about many of them. Knows what he’s talking about, though.
There are numerous comparisons made to use of antibiotics yielding superbugs, and they frustrate me quite a bit because the people who make them absolutely do not understand the differences between bacterial and viral evolution, nor do they get the difference between a vaccine and an antibiotic.
