5 ms·

This strategy is not insane only if there is also a concerted effort to protect those who are vulnerable while the virus spreads. The problem is there isn't one

This strategy is not insane only if there is also a concerted effort to protect those who are vulnerable while the virus spreads. The problem is there isn't one. At all. None. Zip. Zero. Some care homes are, off their own back, banning visitors but apart from that the old and the vulnerable are not being asked to self isolate or engage in social distancing, only those who have symptoms themselves are being told to self isolate, and not members of their households. Social clubs, churches, pubs, cafes, day centres, restaurants etc. where a lot of older people congregate are all still open. None essential home visits have not been curtailed and people are not being advised to socially distance themselves from the vulnerable.

aberoham 7y ago
^^^ 2000% this, a large proportion can't change their ways, is not paying attention or simply doesn't care. It's shocking to still tonight walk past a packed pub on a Saturday night
- arcticbull 7y ago
  Personally, I'm 30, have no contact with folks over 65, have no co-morbid conditions and so I have no reason to keep away from folks. I'm at zero risk. In fact if I get it now and develop an immunity, all the better. I have to assume the same is true of the folks at the pub -- otherwise it's them who are being irresponsible, not me.
  - jononor 7y ago
    Defense in depth is a thing. Your strategy is only as strong as the weakest link. Only one person between you and someone vulnerable.
    - arcticbull 7y ago
      Right, but as I personally am not exposing myself to anyone over the age of 31, and I am not sick, I don't see the harm, or myself as contributing.
      - freehunter 7y ago
        But if you are in contact with someone under 31 who has no choice but to be in contact with someone over 31... I guess the question you have to consider is how much to blame is each individual who chooses to ignore recommended procedures yet passes the virus on to someone who ends up dying.
        arcticbull 7y ago
        Then why are they out? They have no excuse. My parents are older and so I'm not going to visit them, and instead call regularly. That's unfortunate but that's the safest thing to do.
        inimino 7y ago
        By staying out you are contributing to the spread of a virus that society at large is ill-prepared for. You have no excuse either. This shouldn't be hard for a grown adult to understand. If your behaviour is only responsible on the assumption that everyone else you meet is behaving responsibly, then your behaviour is irresponsible.
        ithkuil 7y ago
        Scenario: Your parents get it from somebody who is acting irresponsibility, who in turn got it (in)directly from you. Does it really matter that it's "somebody else's fault"?
  - enraged_camel 7y ago
    This is very wrong. While you yourself may not have contact with old people, you can still act as a vector and spread it to someone who does.
    - arcticbull 7y ago
      Indeed, which is why it's on them not to go out. So long as nobody who has contact with old folks goes out, we're basically doing the UK plan ad-hoc. The rule shouldn't be "nobody go out" the rule should be "nobody with exposure to the vulnerable should go out" -- and if they do, they're being totally irresponsible. I, however, am not, and I'm supporting the local economy.
      - kgwgk 7y ago
        Is the pub the only place where you get in contact with other people?
        arcticbull 7y ago
        I mean, I'm not allowed into the office and I get my groceries delivered from a CSA box ^_^
      - elliekelly 7y ago
        This point of view strikes me as incredibly selfish. Some people who have exposure to vulnerable people might need to go out (to get groceries, medication, etc.) and you could still act as a vector to infect them. Surely your social life will survive two weekends away from the pub.
      - tzs 7y ago
        Old people need groceries and medicine, which in many cases they will have to go out for. (Not everyone has delivery available, or can afford delivery). On those trips they are likely to encounter younger people, including the workers at the grocery stores and pharmacies. Young people also need groceries and medicine, and through the grocery store and pharmacy they are then one step from people who are one step from older people. It only takes a handful of steps for your "nobody with exposure to the vulnerable" to be close to an empty set.
  - hellofunk 7y ago
    I’ve seen this attitude quite a lot among younger people lately, it’s just super irresponsible and arrogant. In a situation like this, the responsibility must be shared, no one should consider themselves free from the responsibilities of stopping the spread this virus.
    - tomp 7y ago
      > In a situation like this, the responsibility must be shared Why not in other situations though? The elites avoid taxes, Boomers have houses, banks are pumping up the asset bubble, while young people have student debt, can't buy a place to live (or even a car), have no assets and, if they're lucky and productive and high-earners, they "enjoy" 20% higher tax rate than owners of capital... Why exactly should anyone now act in a way that is detrimental to themselves, to save some other predators?
      - elliekelly 7y ago
        You might find T.M. Scanlon's What We Owe to Each Other interesting.[1] [1] https://www.scribd.com/document/127602229/Scanlon-1998-What-We-Owe-to-Each-Other https://www.scribd.com/document/127602229/Scanlon-1998-What-...
      - freepor 7y ago
        I hate the fact that I kinda see your point.
    - arcticbull 7y ago
      Again, if you don't come into contact with the vulnerable (or anyone else who does) then you aren't putting anyone at risk and you are developing herd immunity which will in time likely end the virus.
      - btilly 7y ago
        The problem is that while you may not deal with old people, the same is not true of all of the people that you deal with. Remember that it takes an average of no more than 6 steps in your social network to get from any person in the USA to any other person in the USA.
  - tomp 7y ago
    I think this as well. The only problem I learned about, is that there seems to be a chance of long-term respiratory damage (e.g. 20% lower lung capacity), which is as of now unlikely to be properly tracked / reported, but likely higher than the reported number of "critical" or "death" outcomes (which indeed are tiny in < 40s)
    - arcticbull 7y ago
      This is true of other some, but not all other coronaviridae so I suppose it's not a surprise but I also haven't heard any data on this.
  - simtel20 7y ago
    You have a .2% mortality chance once you exhibit symptoms, right? That's much greater than no risk.
    - arcticbull 7y ago
      That 0.2% is in line with the flu, and also, generally is attributable to those with comorbid conditions, especially ones that compromised immunity. If you're young and healthy, it's not 0.2% -- it's much lower. If you're young and unhealthy it's not 0.2% -- it's much higher. There's no such thing as no risk. I'm putting myself at risk of all sorts of things by leaving the house.
      - simtel20 7y ago
        Your reasoning seems off. From what I can find, in your age group, the mortality rate for covid-19 after exhibiting symptoms is 0.2%. This is about equal to the rate for the overall flu mortality rate which includes those who have a higher risk. Your dismissal of "everything puts you at risk" is common when we're young, but it is misplaced as well. I suspect you know and understand that a lot of background risk is actively reduced by the actions we take, personally and professionally (justice system, laws, streetlights, seat belts etc.) so while you may be speaking what you feel, if you know better you may want to reconsider stating it as though it was a fact.
      - notabee 7y ago
        Your figures are wrong by several orders of magnitude. In the 18-49 age group, the seasonal flu fatality rate is around 0.0018%.[1] 0.2% is already uncomfortable odds: 1 in 500. And that figure assumes proper hospital care as others have also replied. It's much higher if the healthcare system is flooded. 1. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2018-2019.html https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2018-2019.html (The mortality rate figures given are per 100,000 population, so 1.8 / 1000 yields the percentage for that age group.)
  - jrk 7y ago
    Aside from the fact that you may spend a week or more spreading virus all over the place and to potentially dozens or hundreds of other people with this approach, there is at least a 1 in 10 chance that, if infected, you will need hospitalization and serious care. You will contribute to overloading a medical system, without which even your mortality rate would be closer to 5% than the <0.1% you seem to assume. It is simply not the case that this has no effect on the non-elderly; severe pneumonia is a debilitating condition even for the young and fit. For a large fraction of everyone who gets it, this is WAY harsher than any flu you have experienced, and even many in your demographic will need extended hospitalization.
    - triangleman 7y ago
      Indeed, "atypical pneumonia" is a killer, you're basically drowning in your own blood and fluids. This can happen to anyone.
  - pmlnr 7y ago
    You are and idiot. Yes, I know I shouldn't leave a comment like this on HN according to the rules, but I'm tired of people like this one.
  - protrate 7y ago
    I turned 31 this month, so I can say this: grow the fuck up. If you willfully ignore science and assume that you alone can maintain your lifestyle through a global crisis, you lose your right to blame boomers for climate change. This is our moment to show how to be different. If we fuck this up, we own whatever happens next. You selfish god damn child.
    - arcticbull 7y ago
      > You selfish god damn child. Classy! Congrats on the age milestone, apparently not all personality traits develop at the same rate for everyone, but I'm confident you'll get there ;) > If you willfully ignore science and assume that you alone can maintain your lifestyle through a global crisis, you lose your right to blame boomers for climate change. There's clearly a lot more to this than that. It's not about continuing to maintain my lifestyle, there's community benefits to continuing to spend money, continuing to engage with folks, and there's obviously some debate as the UK's proposal illustrates, so it's not nearly as black and white as you make it out to be. There is, however, no debate in re: climate change.
      - ithkuil 7y ago
        Consider donating to the pub, the money you'd have spent :-)
        wideasleep1 7y ago
        And tell the tender it's an advance on future pints, and you're keeping track!
        arcticbull 7y ago
        Probably the healthiest thing all around to be honest haha
  - stordoff 7y ago
    > have no contact with folks over 65, have no co-morbid conditions and so I have no reason to keep away from folks. I'm at zero risk. Until you spread it to someone _with_ contact with the over-65/those at risk.
- lvturner 7y ago
  Several did, and they either reduced the mortality rate or slowed the spread of infection. Some made the changes during SARS, some did it now. A large population CAN change it's ways.
- quickthrower2 7y ago
  I’m not shocked at all that Brit’s still want to get wasted at the weekend regardless of anything. Disclosure: expat Brit!
m-i-l 7y ago
See "COVID-19: residential care, supported living and home care guidance"[0]. [0] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-residential-care-supported-living-and-home-care-guidance https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-resident...
mytailorisrich 7y ago
In any case, the health services are not, and will not be, in a position to handle 40 million cases this year. The curve must be flattened over years. Scientists have written that much in a letter to the government today.
OJFord 7y ago
> only those who have symptoms [...] Where 'symptoms' includes 'a cough'; not just definitely-COVID-19 symptoms. > [...] themselves are being told to self isolate, and not members of their households. That's not true.
- another-dave 7y ago
  From the Guardian on Thurs, quoting Boris Johnson: “At some point in the next few weeks we are likely to go further, and if someone in a household has those symptoms then we will be asking everyone in that household to stay at home. I want to signal now that this is coming down the track.” — https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/12/uk-moves-to-delay-phase-of-coronavirus-plan https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/12/uk-moves-to-de... Which would suggest that's not the advice currently. Would be interested to see anything counter to that though if you've links.
  - OJFord 7y ago
    > The move to launch “shielding” of the elderly and infirm and “whole family isolation” is an escalation since Thursday, when the government said that only individuals with a persistent dry cough or temperature should stay at home for seven days. Paywall, sorry, but from: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/coronavirus-death-toll-leaps-and-forces-boris-johnson-to-act-nhbc5ctb9 https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/coronavirus-death-toll-le...
    - stordoff 7y ago
      > the prime minister ordered the government to accelerate plans [...and] is expected to impose the new rules this week It's not the current advice.
- d2p 7y ago
  > That's not true. How so? Everything I've seen from them, including the Gov't site only say to self-isolate. They said that in the near future they may tell households to isolate, but right now only the person with symptoms. > "people with confirmed or possible coronavirus (COVID-19) infection" https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-stay-at-home-guidance https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-stay-at-...
macca321 7y ago
According to Peston: "elderly to be quarantined at home or in care homes for four months, in "wartime-style" mobilisation to combat Coronavirus." https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1238917834111156231 https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1238917834111156231
- toohotatopic 7y ago
  How do you quarantine them if they need support from nurses and caregivers who aren't quarantined?
tuna-piano 7y ago
Unless the old people homes have live-in staff and are careful with deliveries, then I don't see the difference between a visitor and a staff member. Scary.
rolltiide 7y ago
Isn't that how all the Native Americans died? The immigrants and imperialists weren't sick and their resistance to cause a herd immunity to the natives because the diseases were still ON THEM and it spread to the natives! This does not protect the vulnerable ones????

aberoham 7y ago

^^^ 2000% this, a large proportion can't change their ways, is not paying attention or simply doesn't care. It's shocking to still tonight walk past a packed pub on a Saturday night

arcticbull 7y ago
Personally, I'm 30, have no contact with folks over 65, have no co-morbid conditions and so I have no reason to keep away from folks. I'm at zero risk. In fact if I get it now and develop an immunity, all the better. I have to assume the same is true of the folks at the pub -- otherwise it's them who are being irresponsible, not me.
- jononor 7y ago
  Defense in depth is a thing. Your strategy is only as strong as the weakest link. Only one person between you and someone vulnerable.
  - arcticbull 7y ago
    Right, but as I personally am not exposing myself to anyone over the age of 31, and I am not sick, I don't see the harm, or myself as contributing.
    - freehunter 7y ago
      But if you are in contact with someone under 31 who has no choice but to be in contact with someone over 31... I guess the question you have to consider is how much to blame is each individual who chooses to ignore recommended procedures yet passes the virus on to someone who ends up dying.
      - arcticbull 7y ago
        Then why are they out? They have no excuse. My parents are older and so I'm not going to visit them, and instead call regularly. That's unfortunate but that's the safest thing to do.
        inimino 7y ago
        By staying out you are contributing to the spread of a virus that society at large is ill-prepared for. You have no excuse either. This shouldn't be hard for a grown adult to understand. If your behaviour is only responsible on the assumption that everyone else you meet is behaving responsibly, then your behaviour is irresponsible.
        ithkuil 7y ago
        Scenario: Your parents get it from somebody who is acting irresponsibility, who in turn got it (in)directly from you. Does it really matter that it's "somebody else's fault"?
- enraged_camel 7y ago
  This is very wrong. While you yourself may not have contact with old people, you can still act as a vector and spread it to someone who does.
  - arcticbull 7y ago
    Indeed, which is why it's on them not to go out. So long as nobody who has contact with old folks goes out, we're basically doing the UK plan ad-hoc. The rule shouldn't be "nobody go out" the rule should be "nobody with exposure to the vulnerable should go out" -- and if they do, they're being totally irresponsible. I, however, am not, and I'm supporting the local economy.
    - kgwgk 7y ago
      Is the pub the only place where you get in contact with other people?
      - arcticbull 7y ago
        I mean, I'm not allowed into the office and I get my groceries delivered from a CSA box ^_^
    - elliekelly 7y ago
      This point of view strikes me as incredibly selfish. Some people who have exposure to vulnerable people might need to go out (to get groceries, medication, etc.) and you could still act as a vector to infect them. Surely your social life will survive two weekends away from the pub.
    - tzs 7y ago
      Old people need groceries and medicine, which in many cases they will have to go out for. (Not everyone has delivery available, or can afford delivery). On those trips they are likely to encounter younger people, including the workers at the grocery stores and pharmacies. Young people also need groceries and medicine, and through the grocery store and pharmacy they are then one step from people who are one step from older people. It only takes a handful of steps for your "nobody with exposure to the vulnerable" to be close to an empty set.
- hellofunk 7y ago
  I’ve seen this attitude quite a lot among younger people lately, it’s just super irresponsible and arrogant. In a situation like this, the responsibility must be shared, no one should consider themselves free from the responsibilities of stopping the spread this virus.
  - tomp 7y ago
    > In a situation like this, the responsibility must be shared Why not in other situations though? The elites avoid taxes, Boomers have houses, banks are pumping up the asset bubble, while young people have student debt, can't buy a place to live (or even a car), have no assets and, if they're lucky and productive and high-earners, they "enjoy" 20% higher tax rate than owners of capital... Why exactly should anyone now act in a way that is detrimental to themselves, to save some other predators?
    - elliekelly 7y ago
      You might find T.M. Scanlon's What We Owe to Each Other interesting.[1] [1] https://www.scribd.com/document/127602229/Scanlon-1998-What-We-Owe-to-Each-Other https://www.scribd.com/document/127602229/Scanlon-1998-What-...
    - freepor 7y ago
      I hate the fact that I kinda see your point.
  - arcticbull 7y ago
    Again, if you don't come into contact with the vulnerable (or anyone else who does) then you aren't putting anyone at risk and you are developing herd immunity which will in time likely end the virus.
    - btilly 7y ago
      The problem is that while you may not deal with old people, the same is not true of all of the people that you deal with. Remember that it takes an average of no more than 6 steps in your social network to get from any person in the USA to any other person in the USA.
- tomp 7y ago
  I think this as well. The only problem I learned about, is that there seems to be a chance of long-term respiratory damage (e.g. 20% lower lung capacity), which is as of now unlikely to be properly tracked / reported, but likely higher than the reported number of "critical" or "death" outcomes (which indeed are tiny in < 40s)
  - arcticbull 7y ago
    This is true of other some, but not all other coronaviridae so I suppose it's not a surprise but I also haven't heard any data on this.
- simtel20 7y ago
  You have a .2% mortality chance once you exhibit symptoms, right? That's much greater than no risk.
  - arcticbull 7y ago
    That 0.2% is in line with the flu, and also, generally is attributable to those with comorbid conditions, especially ones that compromised immunity. If you're young and healthy, it's not 0.2% -- it's much lower. If you're young and unhealthy it's not 0.2% -- it's much higher. There's no such thing as no risk. I'm putting myself at risk of all sorts of things by leaving the house.
    - simtel20 7y ago
      Your reasoning seems off. From what I can find, in your age group, the mortality rate for covid-19 after exhibiting symptoms is 0.2%. This is about equal to the rate for the overall flu mortality rate which includes those who have a higher risk. Your dismissal of "everything puts you at risk" is common when we're young, but it is misplaced as well. I suspect you know and understand that a lot of background risk is actively reduced by the actions we take, personally and professionally (justice system, laws, streetlights, seat belts etc.) so while you may be speaking what you feel, if you know better you may want to reconsider stating it as though it was a fact.
    - notabee 7y ago
      Your figures are wrong by several orders of magnitude. In the 18-49 age group, the seasonal flu fatality rate is around 0.0018%.[1] 0.2% is already uncomfortable odds: 1 in 500. And that figure assumes proper hospital care as others have also replied. It's much higher if the healthcare system is flooded. 1. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2018-2019.html https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2018-2019.html (The mortality rate figures given are per 100,000 population, so 1.8 / 1000 yields the percentage for that age group.)
- jrk 7y ago
  Aside from the fact that you may spend a week or more spreading virus all over the place and to potentially dozens or hundreds of other people with this approach, there is at least a 1 in 10 chance that, if infected, you will need hospitalization and serious care. You will contribute to overloading a medical system, without which even your mortality rate would be closer to 5% than the <0.1% you seem to assume. It is simply not the case that this has no effect on the non-elderly; severe pneumonia is a debilitating condition even for the young and fit. For a large fraction of everyone who gets it, this is WAY harsher than any flu you have experienced, and even many in your demographic will need extended hospitalization.
  - triangleman 7y ago
    Indeed, "atypical pneumonia" is a killer, you're basically drowning in your own blood and fluids. This can happen to anyone.
- pmlnr 7y ago
  You are and idiot. Yes, I know I shouldn't leave a comment like this on HN according to the rules, but I'm tired of people like this one.
- protrate 7y ago
  I turned 31 this month, so I can say this: grow the fuck up. If you willfully ignore science and assume that you alone can maintain your lifestyle through a global crisis, you lose your right to blame boomers for climate change. This is our moment to show how to be different. If we fuck this up, we own whatever happens next. You selfish god damn child.
  - arcticbull 7y ago
    > You selfish god damn child. Classy! Congrats on the age milestone, apparently not all personality traits develop at the same rate for everyone, but I'm confident you'll get there ;) > If you willfully ignore science and assume that you alone can maintain your lifestyle through a global crisis, you lose your right to blame boomers for climate change. There's clearly a lot more to this than that. It's not about continuing to maintain my lifestyle, there's community benefits to continuing to spend money, continuing to engage with folks, and there's obviously some debate as the UK's proposal illustrates, so it's not nearly as black and white as you make it out to be. There is, however, no debate in re: climate change.
    - ithkuil 7y ago
      Consider donating to the pub, the money you'd have spent :-)
      - wideasleep1 7y ago
        And tell the tender it's an advance on future pints, and you're keeping track!
        arcticbull 7y ago
        Probably the healthiest thing all around to be honest haha
- stordoff 7y ago
  > have no contact with folks over 65, have no co-morbid conditions and so I have no reason to keep away from folks. I'm at zero risk. Until you spread it to someone _with_ contact with the over-65/those at risk.
lvturner 7y ago
Several did, and they either reduced the mortality rate or slowed the spread of infection. Some made the changes during SARS, some did it now. A large population CAN change it's ways.
quickthrower2 7y ago
I’m not shocked at all that Brit’s still want to get wasted at the weekend regardless of anything. Disclosure: expat Brit!

m-i-l 7y ago

See "COVID-19: residential care, supported living and home care guidance"[0]. [0] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-residential-care-supported-living-and-home-care-guidance https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-resident...

mytailorisrich 7y ago

In any case, the health services are not, and will not be, in a position to handle 40 million cases this year. The curve must be flattened over years. Scientists have written that much in a letter to the government today.

OJFord 7y ago

> only those who have symptoms [...] Where 'symptoms' includes 'a cough'; not just definitely-COVID-19 symptoms. > [...] themselves are being told to self isolate, and not members of their households. That's not true.

another-dave 7y ago
From the Guardian on Thurs, quoting Boris Johnson: “At some point in the next few weeks we are likely to go further, and if someone in a household has those symptoms then we will be asking everyone in that household to stay at home. I want to signal now that this is coming down the track.” — https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/12/uk-moves-to-delay-phase-of-coronavirus-plan https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/12/uk-moves-to-de... Which would suggest that's not the advice currently. Would be interested to see anything counter to that though if you've links.
- OJFord 7y ago
  > The move to launch “shielding” of the elderly and infirm and “whole family isolation” is an escalation since Thursday, when the government said that only individuals with a persistent dry cough or temperature should stay at home for seven days. Paywall, sorry, but from: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/coronavirus-death-toll-leaps-and-forces-boris-johnson-to-act-nhbc5ctb9 https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/coronavirus-death-toll-le...
  - stordoff 7y ago
    > the prime minister ordered the government to accelerate plans [...and] is expected to impose the new rules this week It's not the current advice.
d2p 7y ago
> That's not true. How so? Everything I've seen from them, including the Gov't site only say to self-isolate. They said that in the near future they may tell households to isolate, but right now only the person with symptoms. > "people with confirmed or possible coronavirus (COVID-19) infection" https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-stay-at-home-guidance https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-stay-at-...

macca321 7y ago

According to Peston: "elderly to be quarantined at home or in care homes for four months, in "wartime-style" mobilisation to combat Coronavirus." https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1238917834111156231 https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1238917834111156231

toohotatopic 7y ago
How do you quarantine them if they need support from nurses and caregivers who aren't quarantined?

tuna-piano 7y ago

Unless the old people homes have live-in staff and are careful with deliveries, then I don't see the difference between a visitor and a staff member. Scary.

rolltiide 7y ago

Isn't that how all the Native Americans died? The immigrants and imperialists weren't sick and their resistance to cause a herd immunity to the natives because the diseases were still ON THEM and it spread to the natives! This does not protect the vulnerable ones????