6 ms·

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 nee

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.

daleholborow 7y ago
You give yourself? Merkel just advised the German government that 60-70% of Germans could ultimately be exposed.
- kohtatsu 7y ago
  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.
  - lm28469 7y ago
    > 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.
    - kohtatsu 7y ago
      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.
trenchgun 7y ago
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.
tobltobs 7y ago
> maybe it wouldn't be a terrible idea. It is a terribly stupid idea. Our only hope is too flatten the curve.
- kohtatsu 7y ago
  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.
  - felixworks 7y ago
    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.
muzani 7y ago
Some experts are saying about 50%-70% of society will get infected at this rate. But that doesn't mean your odds are 70%.

daleholborow 7y ago

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

kohtatsu 7y ago
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.
- lm28469 7y ago
  > 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.
  - kohtatsu 7y ago
    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.

trenchgun 7y ago

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.

tobltobs 7y ago

> maybe it wouldn't be a terrible idea. It is a terribly stupid idea. Our only hope is too flatten the curve.

kohtatsu 7y ago
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.
- felixworks 7y ago
  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.

muzani 7y ago

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