SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: i-node who wrote (174148)7/25/2020 5:22:23 AM
From: Lane3  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 361771
 


But would that be the best solution if, i.e., you had a treatment that effectively eradicate the virus within days, like a cold that comes and goes?


Conceptually, it's just as good if not better to have such a treatment. Better, because then everyone would not need to take the medication, only those who get sick. But then, of course, everyone would have to know right away when they get sick, which presents a different challenge.



To: i-node who wrote (174148)7/25/2020 12:14:35 PM
From: Lane3  Respond to of 361771
 
Conceptually, it's just as good if not better to have such a treatment. Better, because then everyone would not need to take the medication, only those who get sick. But then, of course, everyone would have to know right away when they get sick, which presents a different challenge.

CJ's response caused me to go back and look at the above post and notice how poorly I expressed it. So I will try again:

Having a treatment, conceptually, is as good if not better than having a vaccine. With a vaccine, everyone has to take it, which conveys some risk. With a treatment, only those who contract the disease need take anything.

The problem with the latter, particularly in the case of covid, is knowing right away that one has contracted it so as to timely take the treatment. This "presents a different challenge," which is that it would require everyone to be tested every few days.