Hacker News Reader

Comment by kohtatsu | Hacker News Reader

I think it's possible you remain contagious for more than a couple weeks (I read 6 way back when); the 14 day period is just to see if you have symptoms and need testing.

As long as nobody is above 40(?), and there are no underlying conditions like bronchitis, or immunodeficiency, maybe it wouldn't be a terrible idea. But you need to be ready to quarantine everyone until tests come back negative, and then there are false negatives, and it becomes a widespread think idea I'm sure people will mistakenly get their moms involved without realizing how dangerous it is for older people.

Also where did you get 70%? I give myself a 0-5% chance with some decent social distancing.

View on HN

> maybe it wouldn't be a terrible idea.

It is a terribly stupid idea.

Our only hope is too flatten the curve.

Yeah, I don't think this is an approach we could take because laymen would try it. But as a thought experiment I don't think this is mutually exclusive with flattening the curve.

If you could guarantee a group of people would be part of the mild cold symptoms (~80%), it would be nice to have them get it, isolate and monitor, and let their bodies develop the immunity.

They would no longer be able to spread it to more vulnerable people.

It's just like a vaccine, but riskier.

But beyond all that, I now remember there's evidence the virus might be doing permanent damage.

So definitely don't do this. Even if you could quarantine for 10 weeks or whatever.

This strategy could be helpful for future pandemics, if more governments learned to be much more proactive about public health. In other words, we can forget about this strategy.

The basic calculation is: 1-1/R0

R0 is around 3.

So 1-1/3=0.67 => 67% of population will be infected.

That is the situation if we don't do effective measures on a population level.

Edit: I am unable to math, fixed.

Some experts are saying about 50%-70% of society will get infected at this rate. But that doesn't mean your odds are 70%.

You give yourself? Merkel just advised the German government that 60-70% of Germans could ultimately be exposed.

I'm in a remote part of Canada, everyone is very cautious in my town of ~20k, and I can work remotely.

I'm taking extra precautions because I have asthma.

60-70% could be exposed in Germany, OK, over what time frame?

I would give myself a high likelihood of being in that 30-40%; working hard to not occupy a ventilator if I can because I'm in a privileged position.

> everyone is very cautious in my town of ~20k,

That's not how it works unless by "cautious" you mean wearing gloves and properly fitted masks and avoiding all unprotected human contact.

By cautious I mean there are 100 confirmed cases in my country, yet everyone is already talking about it and few people are scoffing. Our cafés are mostly empty, which yes counts as being cautious, and yes it is literally how social distancing and flattening the curve works.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com