Ask HN: Can we stop Coronavirus if enough people volunteer to catch it? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Can we stop Coronavirus if enough people volunteer to catch it?

2 pointsshakiba7 comments

A virus would stop spreading in community if 40%-60% of people are immune, for example by catching it and producing antibody. So a radical approach would be to have people who are more likely to survive volunteer to catch it in quarantine and under care.

It would make volunteers immune so that they can get back to life and work without worry and will stop the virus from hitting more vulnerable groups.

View on HN

I just listened to a BBC interview with a passenger on the quarantined Diamond Princess. She commented that within a month, covid will probably have spread to every city and household in the US. As a gornisht, I generally concur. As /usr/detaro mentioned, there do seem to be significant complications with covid. I just read a disturbing 'testimony' from a doctor at the front line in Italy[0] which would appear to advise against such a plan, and also notes the severity of the virus, which is not at all normal, it seems.

I think there will be no easy answers or solutions.

0. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22520562

You might also consider the Chinese doctor largely responsible for initiating action and informing the public. He died, helping others. Repeat exposure might not have helped.

I may have confused "Diamond" with "Grand" when referencing the quarantined ship.

It's far from clear that having it actually provides reliable immunization.

I guess it provide immunization because it's very similar to what happens with a cold, but IANAMD. And this guy "Dr. Anthony Fauci" agree with me https://www.uchealth.org/today/what-you-should-know-about-co... (I'd like to have a direct citation.)

The main problem is that a small amount of the 40%-60% (I'd prefer more, like 70%) of the population will have complications (because they have an undiscover heart problem? they lie in the interview? bad luck?). And some of them will die (perhaps even for unrelated problem). And it doesn't matter how much paperwork they signed, the family will sue you and the press will fall over you.

(And probably the 40%-60% (70%) will not include children and it will propagate in schools, and also not include old people and it will propagate in geriatrics.)

I think I remembered this report about people potentially getting infected repeatedly: https://www.businessinsider.com/wuhan-coronavirus-risk-of-re...

It is strange. Is there more published information about the tourist guide? Perhaps it's a very rare case because she had other health problems.

Perhaps 99% of the people get enough immunity. Vaccines don't have a 100% of immunity protection neither.

The video linked in the article doesn't add much more information. Note that the written description says

> So, they need to prevent infection by increasing their physical activity, says Chinese expert.

that doesn't make any sense, but the translation in the video says

> cured patients should enhance their own health safeguards

Edit: I found https://globalnews.ca/news/6623287/coronavirus-multiple-infe... and https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-health-japan/japane... . It's not very clear, but it looks like a continuation of the first infection after a few week of no symptoms. Anyway, another reason not to infect 50% of the population on purpose.

The big problem seems to be,in addition to a 3%+death rate, that at least 10% of the people that show symptoms will end up in the hospital. There's a point where the medical system will start to fail. The goal should be to minimize exposure and hope for a fast vaccine development.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com