4 ms·

I'm sorry, I simply don't understand the thought process here... Question 1) Is the spread inevitable, or can we achieve containment? Question 2) If it can't

by zaroth 7y ago

I'm sorry, I simply don't understand the thought process here... Question 1) Is the spread inevitable, or can we achieve containment? Question 2) If it can't be contained, and worldwide spread is inevitable, approximately how many new cases per day do you want to see for the next 6 months? I would say the answer to #1 is that spread is absolutely inevitable. There are way too many vectors, and it is way too virulent. I'd go further and say that I believe tens if not hundreds of millions of people have already been infected and will never have serious illness, but such a claim is really besides the point. I would say the answer to #2 is; just so many as you don't run out of ventilators. And absolutely start setting up rows of ventilators in dedicated facilities in major cities. So to those saying we should have done more, sooner... I ask, to what end? Follow through on the hypothetical "done more sooner" scenario. Worldometer says the US has 1,518 active cases, of which 10 are serious. So 10 people in the country are in an ICU for COVID-19 right now? "Test everyone!" To what end? You don't need to test people in order to know if they need an ICU. The ICUs are not full - and you don't need more testing to tell you that. The main benefit to more testing would be that people who are self-quarantining due to potential exposure could maybe stop self-quarantining earlier. That's a fairly marginal benefit. This isn't a situation where the world is going to shut down until a vaccine is available and administered to a billion people. This is a situation where the vast majority of people have mild symptoms, then herd immunity, and then will very much need to get back to work in order to buy groceries and pay their mortgage.

chasd00 7y ago
yeah at this point it seems reasonable to me that increasing ICU capacity is going to become top priority soon. We missed the boat on testing and containment. We should continue to educate and modify behavior to lesson rate of injection and also increase ICU capacity to handle the inevitable severe cases.
troyvit 7y ago
> I would say the answer to #1 is that spread is absolutely inevitable. The WHO disagrees: https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-mission-briefing-on-covid-19---12-march-2020 https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-... > "Test everyone!" To what end? You don't need to test people in order to know if they need an ICU. The ICUs are not full - and you don't need more testing to tell you that. The main benefit to more testing would be that people who are self-quarantining due to potential exposure could maybe stop self-quarantining earlier. That's a fairly marginal benefit. Germany was ahead of the curve testing people and as a result (so far) they are weathering the virus much better than most other countries (including the US): https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-03-10/germany-and-coronavirus https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-03-10/german... It's not all about the testing for them but in the article they do count it as a key reason why they are doing well so far.
- zaroth 7y ago
  Testing may reduce the number of cases, how does it reduce the severity of cases? This is an illness with no treatment, only symptoms are treated. Germany apparently has 10 people in serious condition. Availability of resources obviously isn’t a factor...
  - Joker_vD 7y ago
    What do you mean, "no treatment"? Chinese used lopinavir+ ritonavir combination to a great effect, it's just that those drugs have quite a number of possible side effects, plus they're not officially blessed as COVID-19 treatment.
eigenvector 7y ago
You need testing to provide political capital to do all the other things that are actually necessary to respond to and treat the virus. Otherwise politicians can hide behind relatively low numbers of confirmed cases as an excuse for inaction.
mamon 7y ago
>> "Test everyone!" To what end? You don't need to test people in order to know if they need an ICU. The ICUs are not full - and you don't need more testing to tell you that. The main benefit to more testing would be that people who are self-quarantining due to potential exposure could maybe stop self-quarantining earlier. That's a fairly marginal benefit. You underestimate human stupidity :) People self-quarantaing is a sign of great awarenes of the danger. Meanwhile there are millions of people who ignore symptoms because "it's just a common flu, not coronavirus, don't be paranoid". Testing everyone would help identify and quarantaine those people (against their will, if necessary).

by zaroth 7y ago

chasd00 7y ago

yeah at this point it seems reasonable to me that increasing ICU capacity is going to become top priority soon. We missed the boat on testing and containment. We should continue to educate and modify behavior to lesson rate of injection and also increase ICU capacity to handle the inevitable severe cases.

troyvit 7y ago

> I would say the answer to #1 is that spread is absolutely inevitable. The WHO disagrees: https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-mission-briefing-on-covid-19---12-march-2020 https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-... > "Test everyone!" To what end? You don't need to test people in order to know if they need an ICU. The ICUs are not full - and you don't need more testing to tell you that. The main benefit to more testing would be that people who are self-quarantining due to potential exposure could maybe stop self-quarantining earlier. That's a fairly marginal benefit. Germany was ahead of the curve testing people and as a result (so far) they are weathering the virus much better than most other countries (including the US): https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-03-10/germany-and-coronavirus https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-03-10/german... It's not all about the testing for them but in the article they do count it as a key reason why they are doing well so far.

zaroth 7y ago
Testing may reduce the number of cases, how does it reduce the severity of cases? This is an illness with no treatment, only symptoms are treated. Germany apparently has 10 people in serious condition. Availability of resources obviously isn’t a factor...
- Joker_vD 7y ago
  What do you mean, "no treatment"? Chinese used lopinavir+ ritonavir combination to a great effect, it's just that those drugs have quite a number of possible side effects, plus they're not officially blessed as COVID-19 treatment.

eigenvector 7y ago

You need testing to provide political capital to do all the other things that are actually necessary to respond to and treat the virus. Otherwise politicians can hide behind relatively low numbers of confirmed cases as an excuse for inaction.

mamon 7y ago

>> "Test everyone!" To what end? You don't need to test people in order to know if they need an ICU. The ICUs are not full - and you don't need more testing to tell you that. The main benefit to more testing would be that people who are self-quarantining due to potential exposure could maybe stop self-quarantining earlier. That's a fairly marginal benefit. You underestimate human stupidity :) People self-quarantaing is a sign of great awarenes of the danger. Meanwhile there are millions of people who ignore symptoms because "it's just a common flu, not coronavirus, don't be paranoid". Testing everyone would help identify and quarantaine those people (against their will, if necessary).