More generally, there seems to be a fundamental flaw in the way...

More generally, there seems to be a fundamental flaw in the way we sometimes think about the tools we have available to fight the virus.

I have heard people say, for example, that facemasks are pointless because they don't work properly unless they are fitted in a certain way etc. But is a facemask that is not fitted perfectly still better than no facemask? Isn't that the real question? In the absence of perfect facemasks and the possibility of having them perfectly fitted, doesn't it make sense to use what we have available right now?

Nazi's are surrounding and infiltrating your village, with an attack possible at any moment. You only have a few limited weapons. Someone says, 'I have lots of new weapons here that might help.' Would you say, 'Oh, those weapons only kill 50 per cent of the Nazis you aim at. And those ones don't kill Nazis at all; they only destroy their food supplies. No thanks, take those imperfect weapons away and bring me some perfect ones'?

Or would you say, 'Well, these are the best weapons that are actually available right now, and the situation is urgent. Let's make sure we understand how to use them properly and what their strengths and limitations are, and put them to good use immediately'?