The exception being South Korea. They have been demonstrating an optimal response to this pandemic. Test everyone as fast as possible, isolate those who are positive.
That assumes that in 100 years optimality of response will be defined as fewest possible deaths in this outbreak?
(I am not saying that is not going to be true, but if the virus doesn't get effectively eradicated then it may well not end up being so? Not An Expert At All, just spitballing)
I would say that 'optimal' can loosely be defined as 'minimal negative impact to society.'
They are showing that a virus can be contained if dealt with quickly and in a coordinated fashion. This results in fewer people getting ill (and dying) as well as minimizing economic impact.
Under what circumstances would you expect an infection in the future to be more likely to cause death than an infection right now? Maybe some fad treatment will be embraced by everybody that does more harm than good? Maybe the world economy will collapse and nobody will be able to manufacture ventilators any more?
Any scenario I come up with seem very implausible compared to the idea that as we learn more about the virus our ability to treat it will improve.
