COVID-19 ongoing thread part 2

[mr friendly guy]

You don't even need to forcibly inject someone. In Australia we encourage people to vaccinate with things like, no vaccine, no welfare benefits or no vaccine, no school for you. You can choose to vaccinate, but others have the right to be protected from unvaccinated people.

[Ralin]

What the fuck is this about abortion?

An obvious comparison

[loomer]

What the fuck is this about abortion?

An obvious comparison

Not really, actually. It's a bizarre and unhelpful comparison because you're discussing a procedure to put something into someone against their will rather than a procedure to take something out with their consent.

[Ralin]

Not really, actually. It's a bizarre and unhelpful comparison because you're discussing a procedure to put something into someone against their will rather than a procedure to take something out with their consent.

It's a comparison to one case of people justifying violating someone else's right to control over their own body based on a third-party's welfare to another. Again, obvious comparison.

[loomer]

Not really, actually. It's a bizarre and unhelpful comparison because you're discussing a procedure to put something into someone against their will rather than a procedure to take something out with their consent.

It's a comparison to one case of people justifying violating someone else's right to control over their own body based on a third-party's welfare to another. Again, obvious comparison.

Again, not an obvious comparison as the ramifications of the two are completely different.

[Ralin]

Again, not an obvious comparison as the ramifications of the two are completely different.

Very obvious comparison, and now you're just being deliberately obtuse.

[loomer]

Again, not an obvious comparison as the ramifications of the two are completely different.

Very obvious comparison, and now you're just being deliberately obtuse.

No, Ralin, they really aren't obvious or helpful as a comparison. This isn't deliberate obtuseness - it's contesting that the ethics of voluntary abortion access and involuntary forced medication are different and cannot be collapsed into a simple 'your body, your choice' rubric. If it's so obvious, I'm sure you can explain it, but in the meanwhile, all you're doing is yelling 'they're the same!' while looking like a complete twat.

[Ralin]

No, Ralin, they really aren't obvious or helpful as a comparison. This isn't deliberate obtuseness - it's contesting that the ethics of voluntary abortion access and involuntary forced medication are different and cannot be collapsed into a simple 'your body, your choice' rubric. If it's so obvious, I'm sure you can explain it, but in the meanwhile, all you're doing is yelling 'they're the same!' while looking like a complete twat.

The explanation is that both are examples of cases where people try to justify violating other people's bodily autonomy on a fairly basic level for the sake of someone else's well-being. As you damned well know. Go do your wall of ignorance trolling somewhere else.

[Broomstick]

Only half of Americans say they would get a COVID vaccine:

https://theguardian.com/world/2020/may/ ... ccine-poll

...[snip]...

If COVID-19 were an actual war, these people would be guilty of treason, or at the very least sedition/desertion.

To be honest, I'd have concerns about safety regarding a new vaccine touted by Trump - look at his prior recommendations regarding things like bleach and hydroxychloroquine. I've had bad reactions to vaccines in the past, and if they combine a covid vaccine with a flu vaccine as I'd heard discussed multiple times then medically I may not be able to safely take it. That's not a hard "no", but it does put me into the uncertain camp.

It's not always "sedition" or "treason" if people disagree with you, there are legitimate reasons to be concerned.

[Ralin]

To be honest, I'd have concerns about safety regarding a new vaccine touted by Trump - look at his prior recommendations regarding things like bleach and hydroxychloroquine. I've had bad reactions to vaccines in the past, and if they combine a covid vaccine with a flu vaccine as I'd heard discussed multiple times then medically I may not be able to safely take it. That's not a hard "no", but it does put me into the uncertain camp.

It's certainly a whole lot difference from normal anti-vaccination sentiment. Even before taking into account that we're talking about requiring grown adults to undergo it

[loomer]

No, Ralin, they really aren't obvious or helpful as a comparison. This isn't deliberate obtuseness - it's contesting that the ethics of voluntary abortion access and involuntary forced medication are different and cannot be collapsed into a simple 'your body, your choice' rubric. If it's so obvious, I'm sure you can explain it, but in the meanwhile, all you're doing is yelling 'they're the same!' while looking like a complete twat.

The explanation is that both are examples of cases where people try to justify violating other people's bodily autonomy on a fairly basic level for the sake of someone else's well-being. As you damned well know. Go do your wall of ignorance trolling somewhere else.

So in other words, you actually can't explain how it's a relevant comparison rather than an essentially ethically incomparable situation, you dishonest little twat. What a shock. Your concession is accepted.

[Ralin]

So in other words, you actually can't explain how it's a relevant comparison rather than an essentially ethically incomparable situation, you dishonest little twat. What a shock. Your concession is accepted.

No, in other words I've explained it multiple times and you've refused to acknowledge it in favor of playing dumb you lying little shit. You can shut up and go sit at the children's table now.

[loomer]

So in other words, you actually can't explain how it's a relevant comparison rather than an essentially ethically incomparable situation, you dishonest little twat. What a shock. Your concession is accepted.

No, in other words I've explained it multiple times and you've refused to acknowledge it in favor of playing dumb you lying little shit. You can shut up and go sit at the children's table now.

No, Ralin. All you've done is assert that it's the same because it involves bodily autonomy, but there are radically different ethical issues involved between access to voluntary abortion and forced vaccination. For a start, one of them is voluntary! Now back up your bullshit and explain why we should ignore those differences and view them as analogous, which is one hell of a contentious claim if I ever saw one.

[Ralin]

No, Ralin. All you've done is assert that it's the same because it involves bodily autonomy, but there are radically different ethical issues involved between access to voluntary abortion and forced vaccination. For a start, one of them is voluntary! Now back up your bullshit and explain why we should ignore those differences and view them as analogous, which is one hell of a contentious claim if I ever saw one.

The reason is that they are both horrible, traumatic violations of other people's bodily autonomy (having drugs forcibly injected into you and being forced to play host to what is basically a parasite for several months) that are justified on the grounds that they are necessary for the sake of someone else's health and well-being.

As I have explained multiple times. Now stop trolling and go sit at the children's table.

[loomer]

No, Ralin. All you've done is assert that it's the same because it involves bodily autonomy, but there are radically different ethical issues involved between access to voluntary abortion and forced vaccination. For a start, one of them is voluntary! Now back up your bullshit and explain why we should ignore those differences and view them as analogous, which is one hell of a contentious claim if I ever saw one.

The reason is that they are both horrible, traumatic violations of other people's bodily autonomy (having drugs forcibly injected into you and being forced to play host to what is basically a parasite for several months) that are justified on the grounds that they are necessary for the sake of someone else's health and well-being.

As I have explained multiple times. Now stop trolling and go sit at the children's table.

I'll break this down and explain it in simple terms for you.

A person choosing to have an abortion is an elective procedure. A person being forced to have a vaccine is a mandatory procedure.

Access to elective procedures can be justified on the grounds that a person has the right to do with their bodies.

Mandatory procedures can be justified on the grounds that a person's right to bodily autonomy is not absolute and can be infringed on for public health reasons, most critically where a person's right to bodily autonomy entails risking the bodily autonomy, rights, or safety of others.

That is the rationale behind forced vaccinations. The rationale behind allowing access to elective abortions does not apply as it does not speak to risks to the bodily autonomy, rights, or safety of others, and the attempt to make it map is invalid.

Now, your argument hinges on a 'basic right' to bodily autonomy, which you're trying to say can't be infringed on for any reason. But we already permit infringement on that basic right under a great many circumstances - enforced searches, mandatory medication for certain categories of offender, mandatory medical testing and disease screenings for certain persons based on occupation or risk category, even prior instances of mandatory vaccination programs for deadly diseases - the logic for most of which can be applied more readily to the issue of compulsory vaccination than your inane 'well it's like abortion, innit' nonsense. Taking it there is an absurd position because, again, the two categories are radically different in their ethical implications and scope in a way that cannot be condensed into a single 'bodily autonomy!!' slogan.

Your 'explanations' are nothing more than going 'bodily autonomy!' loudly like a broken record despite it actually having relatively little relevance in terms of why elective abortion access is a valid ethical comparison to enforced vaccination. You are attempting to compare a situation in which a person's decision impacts only themselves and a select handful (usually the direct family) versus one in which a person's decision (or lack thereof) can potentially impact the entire society. They don't map.

Now either sit down and shut up, or defend your position with more than just an incoherent 'abortion! bodily autonomy!' screech.

[madd0ct0r]

Man. Way to go from conscription is slavery to 'actually violating bodily autonomy is okay because this is like a war,' Rom. You jackass.

I'm finding the concerns mentioned in this article not unreasonable. I'd also be worried about the potential side-effects of a vaccine that was rushed through development and into mass production with literally no research on the long term or really anything other than the 'maybe a few months' term.

How is it being rushed through development ?

Which steps are being skipped ?

I'm asking those questions of anyone who says the vaccines are being rushed. I've yet to have anyone reply. I honestly don't know if them being rushed is an anti-vax talking point or if some parts of the testing process are being skipped.

I checked with the wife. Ziggy Stardust should be able to corrobarate.

Vaccine development is normally slow beacuase:

1) manpower. There's not a lot of money in it, so there tends to only be one or two passionate teams looking at the problem. This is not the case, and a significant portion of the best teams on the planet are currently looking at it, and sharing results.
2) effciency. Normally you puruse the most promising option,and if that dosen't work try the next one. As a global effort, we're doing all options at once.
3) recruitment. Normally it's quite hard to recruit a statiscally meaningful number of people to a vaccine trial, so a trial might go one for some years until they've collected enough people. This is currently not the case
4) ethics. In most vaccine trials, becuase the thing the vaccine protects against is quite nasty, you cannot ethically give it to the person to prove the vaccine works. This is true for Covid19 too, but becuase it is SO infectious and widespread, it is much easier to show wether your vaccinated group have less incidence of infection than the general popualtion.

Two limits remain:
5) specialist group side effects. Becuase vaccines are given to the widest popualtion possible, the chance of a weird side effect on a tiny subgroup of the popualtion can't be ignored. An example is that the origional form of asprin, willowbark, cuases stomach ulcers in a small percentage of people. We know the disease seems to hit diabetics hard. Would the vaccine?
So when you are testing, you need to recruit different groups or rollout vaccination slowly to make sure there's not a group of people in the population who will not be able to tolerate it.

6) timing side effects: There might be specialist groups who are only vulnerable to side effects at a specific time, or whose vulnerability fluctuates. The horrible side effects of Thalidomide (drug) or Zika (disease) apply to specific days during a pregnancy. The effects of cannibis on the brain are different for young teens and 25 year olds. Pregnancy is traditionally dealt with by waiting until the person is no longer preganant, rather than testing on pregant women.

7) medium to long term side effects. These are the hard ones. Intutively, something turning up as a delayed effect is less of a risk for a one time vaccine compared to a daily dose of something, but there is the risk that a vaccine taken at day zero will cause problems that will only show up 100 or 300 days later, or when a triggering situation occurs. Two examples pulled out of my ass would be something that took out clot-buster production as a side effect, leading to greatly increased chance of a stroke a few months down the line. A second would be something that tweaked the immune response envelope, menaing a later infection by a simialr but diifferent virus provokes a massive, badly aimed immune response that does a lot of damage to your organs by mistake. I HAVE PULLED THESE EXAMPLES OUT OF MY ASS. I WILL BE GETTING THE VACCINE.


So in summary, there are a few limits remaining, so no matter the resources we throw at it, we can't get below a certain minimum timing without changing the risk/reward balanace. But compared to normal vaccine developement times, we can hugely speed it up by application of money, people and scale.

[madd0ct0r]

treble post. ugh.

[madd0ct0r]

Double post. sticky mouse.

[Broomstick]

It's certainly a whole lot difference from normal anti-vaccination sentiment. Even before taking into account that we're talking about requiring grown adults to undergo it

It's not unprecedented. Smallpox vaccination used to be mandatory, including re-vaccination at times, and in some cases it was very much mandatory and enforced. But the memory of smallpox, like the memory of polio, is fading.

This particular grown adult takes every vaccination recommended except the one that I am told not to due to past bad reactions. I've very pro-vaccination, but that doesn't mean I'm eager to roll up my sleeve for a brand new, rushed-to-market vaccine subject to political winds and without a safety record. I'm not totally opposed to it, but I am very, very cautious.

[ray245]

Man. Way to go from conscription is slavery to 'actually violating bodily autonomy is okay because this is like a war,' Rom. You jackass.

I'm finding the concerns mentioned in this article not unreasonable. I'd also be worried about the potential side-effects of a vaccine that was rushed through development and into mass production with literally no research on the long term or really anything other than the 'maybe a few months' term.

How is it being rushed through development ?

Which steps are being skipped ?

I'm asking those questions of anyone who says the vaccines are being rushed. I've yet to have anyone reply. I honestly don't know if them being rushed is an anti-vax talking point or if some parts of the testing process are being skipped.

I checked with the wife. Ziggy Stardust should be able to corrobarate.

Vaccine development is normally slow beacuase:

1) manpower. There's not a lot of money in it, so there tends to only be one or two passionate teams looking at the problem. This is not the case, and a significant portion of the best teams on the planet are currently looking at it, and sharing results.
2) effciency. Normally you puruse the most promising option,and if that dosen't work try the next one. As a global effort, we're doing all options at once.
3) recruitment. Normally it's quite hard to recruit a statiscally meaningful number of people to a vaccine trial, so a trial might go one for some years until they've collected enough people. This is currently not the case
4) ethics. In most vaccine trials, becuase the thing the vaccine protects against is quite nasty, you cannot ethically give it to the person to prove the vaccine works. This is true for Covid19 too, but becuase it is SO infectious and widespread, it is much easier to show wether your vaccinated group have less incidence of infection than the general popualtion.

Two limits remain:
5) specialist group side effects. Becuase vaccines are given to the widest popualtion possible, the chance of a weird side effect on a tiny subgroup of the popualtion can't be ignored. An example is that the origional form of asprin, willowbark, cuases stomach ulcers in a small percentage of people. We know the disease seems to hit diabetics hard. Would the vaccine?
So when you are testing, you need to recruit different groups or rollout vaccination slowly to make sure there's not a group of people in the population who will not be able to tolerate it.

6) timing side effects: There might be specialist groups who are only vulnerable to side effects at a specific time, or whose vulnerability fluctuates. The horrible side effects of Thalidomide (drug) or Zika (disease) apply to specific days during a pregnancy. The effects of cannibis on the brain are different for young teens and 25 year olds. Pregnancy is traditionally dealt with by waiting until the person is no longer preganant, rather than testing on pregant women.

7) medium to long term side effects. These are the hard ones. Intutively, something turning up as a delayed effect is less of a risk for a one time vaccine compared to a daily dose of something, but there is the risk that a vaccine taken at day zero will cause problems that will only show up 100 or 300 days later, or when a triggering situation occurs. Two examples pulled out of my ass would be something that took out clot-buster production as a side effect, leading to greatly increased chance of a stroke a few months down the line. A second would be something that tweaked the immune response envelope, menaing a later infection by a simialr but diifferent virus provokes a massive, badly aimed immune response that does a lot of damage to your organs by mistake. I HAVE PULLED THESE EXAMPLES OUT OF MY ASS. I WILL BE GETTING THE VACCINE.


So in summary, there are a few limits remaining, so no matter the resources we throw at it, we can't get below a certain minimum timing without changing the risk/reward balanace. But compared to normal vaccine developement times, we can hugely speed it up by application of money, people and scale.

Even if the vaccine has side effects, that has to be weighed against the side-effects of actually catching the virus. Lockdowns can only last so long, and the longer you do not vaccinate the population, the more chance you'll end up actually catching the virus.

In places like New Zealand where they have eradicate the virus, they can in theory not have to deal with any potential side-effects. But that will require their border to be closed forever.

[loomer]

It's certainly a whole lot difference from normal anti-vaccination sentiment. Even before taking into account that we're talking about requiring grown adults to undergo it

It's not unprecedented. Smallpox vaccination used to be mandatory, including re-vaccination at times, and in some cases it was very much mandatory and enforced. But the memory of smallpox, like the memory of polio, is fading.

This particular grown adult takes every vaccination recommended except the one that I am told not to due to past bad reactions. I've very pro-vaccination, but that doesn't mean I'm eager to roll up my sleeve for a brand new, rushed-to-market vaccine subject to political winds and without a safety record. I'm not totally opposed to it, but I am very, very cautious.

The smallpox vaccine is a really great example of mandated violations of bodily autonomy for public health reasons (as are various mandatory testing regimes for highly communicable diseases through history), though there's plenty that are still actively pursued. Some are less justified than others, and the penalty is usually jail time or other forms of sanction rather than being held down and injected, but not always - forcible sedation, for instance, for the safety of self and others is a literal case of a sanctioned violation of this kind, though obviously one that needs to be held to the highest criteria of necessity.

[bilateralrope]

We're talking about a hypothetical scenario where a vaccine is created super-fast within the next year.

Do you have anything to suggest that it's a plausible scenario ?

I don't know how real of a risk that is or the exact science behind it. I'll almost certainly get the vaccine when it's available if enough doctors and medical organizations say it's safe. But that's my choice and not anyone else's. And I'll support anyone else who choices otherwise.

There are people who choose not to be vaccinated. Then there are people who can't be vaccinated due to various medical conditions.

If you have both of them in public places, the unvaccinated will bring diseases that kill people who can't be vaccinated. At best, that's telling the people who can't be vaccinated that they aren't allowed in public.

Who do you tell that they aren't allowed in public ?

[Ziggy Stardust]

Going to just add some additional elaboration on maddoctor's excellent breakdown:

I checked with the wife. Ziggy Stardust should be able to corrobarate.

Vaccine development is normally slow beacuase:

1) manpower. There's not a lot of money in it, so there tends to only be one or two passionate teams looking at the problem. This is not the case, and a significant portion of the best teams on the planet are currently looking at it, and sharing results.
2) effciency. Normally you puruse the most promising option,and if that dosen't work try the next one. As a global effort, we're doing all options at once.

These really are the most important ones, and they are highly interconnected.

The research pipeline that informs traditional vaccine development doesn't work that much differently than any other academic discipline. There are politics involved. People with egos who don't want to work with certain other people with egos. Institutions that don't want to collaborate thoroughly because they want the headlines for any breakthroughs. There's the type of subpar research conduct that plagues much translational research: often a lack of attention to basic science and labwork as a means of developing functional hypotheses, the inefficient workflows (e.g. a lot of work being handed off to overworked and overwhelmed post-docs while principal investigators disappear into the wilderness, so to speak), outdated methods (in both lab and analytic procedures), etc.

Basically, in 'normal' times you have lots of different people basically working towards the same goal in isolation. Some are doing it really well, others are doing it really poorly, and none of them communicate very efficiently so that even the ones who are doing it really well may be duplicating work that's already been done elsewhere without knowing it.

Now, while there are still some of the same problems going on, just by more thoroughly and efficiently connecting the entire research community, it has a tendency to self-police. Bad ideas and practices are spotted and weeded out more quickly, and work is done in a more systematic and productive manner.

4) ethics. In most vaccine trials, becuase the thing the vaccine protects against is quite nasty, you cannot ethically give it to the person to prove the vaccine works. This is true for Covid19 too, but becuase it is SO infectious and widespread, it is much easier to show wether your vaccinated group have less incidence of infection than the general popualtion.

Two limits remain:
5) specialist group side effects. Becuase vaccines are given to the widest popualtion possible, the chance of a weird side effect on a tiny subgroup of the popualtion can't be ignored. An example is that the origional form of asprin, willowbark, cuases stomach ulcers in a small percentage of people. We know the disease seems to hit diabetics hard. Would the vaccine?
So when you are testing, you need to recruit different groups or rollout vaccination slowly to make sure there's not a group of people in the population who will not be able to tolerate it.

6) timing side effects: There might be specialist groups who are only vulnerable to side effects at a specific time, or whose vulnerability fluctuates. The horrible side effects of Thalidomide (drug) or Zika (disease) apply to specific days during a pregnancy. The effects of cannibis on the brain are different for young teens and 25 year olds. Pregnancy is traditionally dealt with by waiting until the person is no longer preganant, rather than testing on pregant women.

7) medium to long term side effects. These are the hard ones. Intutively, something turning up as a delayed effect is less of a risk for a one time vaccine compared to a daily dose of something, but there is the risk that a vaccine taken at day zero will cause problems that will only show up 100 or 300 days later, or when a triggering situation occurs. Two examples pulled out of my ass would be something that took out clot-buster production as a side effect, leading to greatly increased chance of a stroke a few months down the line. A second would be something that tweaked the immune response envelope, menaing a later infection by a simialr but diifferent virus provokes a massive, badly aimed immune response that does a lot of damage to your organs by mistake. I HAVE PULLED THESE EXAMPLES OUT OF MY ASS. I WILL BE GETTING THE VACCINE.

This is all true. The safety aspect of vaccine development is the most complicated and the most difficult, as well as the most contentious.

Nobody denies the need to develop the vaccine ethically and to minimize the amount of harm it can do (in any of the dimensions quoted above). However, there is also the issue of bureaucracy. There are good reasons for the bureaucratic structure of drug development to have stopgaps to prevent untested and potentially dangerous drugs from being released to market. However, the current suite of bureaucratic rules that try to enforce these ethical guidelines are decades old (many date to the scandal surrounding the 1976 swine flu outbreak and subsequent mass immunization, the rest are a slapdash of even older regulations and more modern ones).

Many people in vaccine development rightfully point out that modern medicine has changed immensely in the past 50 years, and that the bureaucratic structure should be changed to reflect that. We understand a lot more about how the immune system works and how various pathogens work than we did then, and have far more sophisticated techniques for interrogating new ones. Nobody really knows for sure the best way to do this, but most people agree that the entire vaccine development pipeline can and should be expedited even in 'normal' times, nevermind when the need is as critical as during a pandemic.

[PainRack]

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/ ... ho-adviser

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/29/asia/cor ... index.html

But there's one overlooked success story -- Vietnam. The country of 97 million people has not reported a single coronavirus-related death and on Saturday had just 328 confirmed cases, despite its long border with China and the millions of Chinese visitors it receives each year.

This is all the more remarkable considering Vietnam is a low-middle income country with a much less-advanced healthcare system than others in the region. It only has 8 doctors for every 10,000 people, a third of the ratio in South Korea, according to the World Bank.

Vietnam is going to be the poster boy for if we can do this, why can't you?

some aspects, such as the communal spirit that helped families in microquarantine would be difficult to replicate in the US. Yet, not impossible. We seen this spirit post Katrina. Ex president Obama highlighted how a young boy rallied his community, sourcing hotels and etc for PPE to donate to hospitals.

But so much more, from meals from the government for families in quarantine , the social services aspect, even relief aid for people disrupted by quarantine..... Granted. Much of what made Vietnam in such a good position was because they were on the ball. Microquarantine, testing and contact tracing ensured the virus never escaped into a major community setting despite the long border with China. Similarly, China own lockdown ensured that they sealed off the gap in February and unlike Singapore/SK, they didn't suffer a wave from Europe. China is now undergoing a potential wave from Russia, although the Wuhan province is unclear.


And frankly.... It's also amazing to see China
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/ ... tJQaVMRWh8
Test 11 million people in 2 weeks, this when their test capacity for Wuhan was only 100 thousand.

But ultimately, if a developed G7 country says they can't handle the pandemic, Vietnam stands as the stunning proof that you could have. If you haven't fucked things up early.

[ray245]

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/ ... ho-adviser

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/29/asia/cor ... index.html

But there's one overlooked success story -- Vietnam. The country of 97 million people has not reported a single coronavirus-related death and on Saturday had just 328 confirmed cases, despite its long border with China and the millions of Chinese visitors it receives each year.

This is all the more remarkable considering Vietnam is a low-middle income country with a much less-advanced healthcare system than others in the region. It only has 8 doctors for every 10,000 people, a third of the ratio in South Korea, according to the World Bank.

Vietnam is going to be the poster boy for if we can do this, why can't you?

some aspects, such as the communal spirit that helped families in microquarantine would be difficult to replicate in the US. Yet, not impossible. We seen this spirit post Katrina. Ex president Obama highlighted how a young boy rallied his community, sourcing hotels and etc for PPE to donate to hospitals.

But so much more, from meals from the government for families in quarantine , the social services aspect, even relief aid for people disrupted by quarantine..... Granted. Much of what made Vietnam in such a good position was because they were on the ball. Microquarantine, testing and contact tracing ensured the virus never escaped into a major community setting despite the long border with China. Similarly, China own lockdown ensured that they sealed off the gap in February and unlike Singapore/SK, they didn't suffer a wave from Europe. China is now undergoing a potential wave from Russia, although the Wuhan province is unclear.


And frankly.... It's also amazing to see China
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/ ... tJQaVMRWh8
Test 11 million people in 2 weeks, this when their test capacity for Wuhan was only 100 thousand.

But ultimately, if a developed G7 country says they can't handle the pandemic, Vietnam stands as the stunning proof that you could have. If you haven't fucked things up early.

That requires a society to deal with inconveniences to their daily lives, and there are a number of countries that are simply unwilling to deal with it. Look at how the UK struggles to even ask people with symptoms to stay isolated for seven days.