The lockdown in many places during the spread of the 2019 new corona virus has led to a new normal. There were closures in many countries, closure of human activity, sometimes there was a total closure. Some days no one could walk the streets.
So the question here is whether these measures have slowed / reduced the spread and whether the pandemics end or just result in everyone being immune.
The answer is: many of the previous diseases caused by viruses have been eradicated only thanks to vaccination. These infectious diseases persist or have been largely controlled by vaccination.
So does a forced shutdown really make sense or is it due to fear of the unknown? It is very clear that the cure lies in developing immunity and developing vaccines.
A lock prevents people from traveling freely or meeting other people, especially in public places. This reduces the risk of meeting other people who may be infected, but it does not stop the disease from developing. However, statistical evidence suggests that closure flattens the curve. Over time, what matters is how we stay clean and develop immunity so that in the event of a possible future possibility of being infected, the virus does not find a way to reproduce itself using our cells.
A vaccine simply boosts our immune system by injecting weakened forms of the disease-causing agent. As our body develops immunity to such attacks by generating antibodies, the next time the actual virus tries to attack the body, it will be avoided due to the presence of antibodies.
But if only vaccines ultimately stop the spread of infectious diseases, total shutdowns are not entirely necessary. We can possibly design ways in which people who are healthy but not infected can move.
For all those who need to travel during the occurrences of such pandemics, they can be made to use some special integrated GPS / RFID devices that can measure their body temperature and other vital signs. This can be shared with all those who are present in the vicinity of that location. Mandatory closures can be enforced only for those who are at high risk of infection.
By strictly following the rules of social distancing, one can still move, continue with work, etc. Only during situations where people violate social distancing rules, do you need to enforce shutdowns / outright shutdowns. But recent history with the rise in COVID19 cases suggests that people flout social distancing norms and become vulnerable to infection. So we could make sure people don’t break the rules and impose partial / full closures only conditionally.
Closures are the result of both fear and need. If one considers only the need, simply building immunity and maintaining social distancing rules should be good enough to prevent viruses from entering our bodies.