5 ms·

> It's not "nonsense". It's real. It works for almost every other virus out there (e You're failing to take in consideration that the virus incubation period i

> It's not "nonsense". It's real. It works for almost every other virus out there (e You're failing to take in consideration that the virus incubation period is on average 1 to 2 weeks, and those who manage to recover from the disease take about 2 weeks from diagnosis to confirmed cure. This means that you're comparing 4 weeks of exponential growth with 2 weeks of constant recovery. Sure, those who survived the disease will be immune afterwards. That's great for herd imunity. But the thing you fail to understand is that as the disease increases exponentially, when that time arrives the whole nation has already become infected, and it's too late by then because health services will be unable to cope with the demand and a lot of people will die due to lack of basic medical care.

ajross 7y ago
> But the thing you fail to understand No no, I understand that. But the thinking is, and it seems to be backed by data, that the health system will be able to cope with a full-population maximal pandemic, as long as it is limited to the much less vulnerable segments of the population. The ICUs in Italy and Hubei were filled, for the most part, with elderly patients. The math, such as it is, checks out. The risk management analysis, again, is IMHO batshit crazy. But the theory seems about as sound as it could be given the data we have.
- rumanator 7y ago
  > No no, I understand that. But the thinking is, and it seems to be backed by data, that the health system will be able to cope with a full-population maximal pandemic, as long as it is limited to the much less vulnerable segments of the population. It really doesn't seem that you're getting it, because the whole point of this exercise is that it's quite patently obvious that no health care service in the world is able to keep 10 to 15% of their population in intensive care, which so far is the expected incidence of cases that require medical care. If that was the case then no one would be bothered with yet another flu-like viral infection.
  - ufov2 7y ago
    What is the age distribution of the ICU requirement? Is it really in the ballpark of 10% for all age groups?
  - ajross 7y ago
    > the expected incidence of cases that require medical care. Among the general population! Among people under 50, the best data we have is that the fraction needing ICU care is something like 0.2% (I think, I'd have to look it up again). The intent is to quarantine the at-risk and let it propagate in the "safe". I genuinely think it's you who's failed to understand the plan. You're arguing against something that is not the stated UK policy.
    - kohtatsu 7y ago
      Thanks for being devil's advocate. I too think it's too risky, FWIW. I read a while ago there might be permanent damage as well, but maybe that was hocus. Edit: Business Insider reported HK doctors found some people have 20-30% reduced lung capacity after recovery: https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-recovery-damage-lung-function-gasping-air-hong-kong-doctors-2020-3 https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-recovery-damage-... (n=12)
    - TheCondor 7y ago
      Do we actually have evidence that this quarantining is possible or working?
    - lxxvii 7y ago
      > Among people under 50, the best data we have is that the fraction needing ICU care is something like 0.2% Any chance you remember where you found this statistic? I have been looking for any details on hospitalization rates by age range, but haven't had luck so far.
  - hedora 7y ago
    > 10 to 15% of their population in intensive care Estimates are closer to 10% of the infected getting severe cases, and some small-ish fraction of those requiring intensive care. (The higher percentage numbers are usually an artifact of low testing rates of infected people.) Also, epidemiology suggests that 20-70% will get it. So, we’re looking at ~1% of the population in the hospital at once. The rest of your points stand; we don’t have nearly enough hospital capacity for 1% of the population. Note that with a two week active phase, the pandemic would have to drag on for 20 weeks to get that number to 0.1%. I doubt there is capacity for that either.
- ascorbic 7y ago
  The plan also relies on flattening the curve like other countries' plans. They're just calculating that people won't stay in lockdown for months, and that if they put one in place now people will start emerging just in time to hit the peak of the infections.
zepto 7y ago
Recovery is exponential too - it just lags behind the new cases.
tiawav 7y ago
There are 200 Viruses, vaccines only exist for 20 or so. For some you can hardly build immunity (e.g. Dengue fever). "Sure, those who survived the disease will be immune afterwards." There have been reports of re-infections in China and Japan. This may be mistakes - the never were cured - but this could also point to something more severe. Proceed with caution.

ajross 7y ago

> But the thing you fail to understand No no, I understand that. But the thinking is, and it seems to be backed by data, that the health system will be able to cope with a full-population maximal pandemic, as long as it is limited to the much less vulnerable segments of the population. The ICUs in Italy and Hubei were filled, for the most part, with elderly patients. The math, such as it is, checks out. The risk management analysis, again, is IMHO batshit crazy. But the theory seems about as sound as it could be given the data we have.

rumanator 7y ago
> No no, I understand that. But the thinking is, and it seems to be backed by data, that the health system will be able to cope with a full-population maximal pandemic, as long as it is limited to the much less vulnerable segments of the population. It really doesn't seem that you're getting it, because the whole point of this exercise is that it's quite patently obvious that no health care service in the world is able to keep 10 to 15% of their population in intensive care, which so far is the expected incidence of cases that require medical care. If that was the case then no one would be bothered with yet another flu-like viral infection.
- ufov2 7y ago
  What is the age distribution of the ICU requirement? Is it really in the ballpark of 10% for all age groups?
- ajross 7y ago
  > the expected incidence of cases that require medical care. Among the general population! Among people under 50, the best data we have is that the fraction needing ICU care is something like 0.2% (I think, I'd have to look it up again). The intent is to quarantine the at-risk and let it propagate in the "safe". I genuinely think it's you who's failed to understand the plan. You're arguing against something that is not the stated UK policy.
  - kohtatsu 7y ago
    Thanks for being devil's advocate. I too think it's too risky, FWIW. I read a while ago there might be permanent damage as well, but maybe that was hocus. Edit: Business Insider reported HK doctors found some people have 20-30% reduced lung capacity after recovery: https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-recovery-damage-lung-function-gasping-air-hong-kong-doctors-2020-3 https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-recovery-damage-... (n=12)
  - TheCondor 7y ago
    Do we actually have evidence that this quarantining is possible or working?
  - lxxvii 7y ago
    > Among people under 50, the best data we have is that the fraction needing ICU care is something like 0.2% Any chance you remember where you found this statistic? I have been looking for any details on hospitalization rates by age range, but haven't had luck so far.
- hedora 7y ago
  > 10 to 15% of their population in intensive care Estimates are closer to 10% of the infected getting severe cases, and some small-ish fraction of those requiring intensive care. (The higher percentage numbers are usually an artifact of low testing rates of infected people.) Also, epidemiology suggests that 20-70% will get it. So, we’re looking at ~1% of the population in the hospital at once. The rest of your points stand; we don’t have nearly enough hospital capacity for 1% of the population. Note that with a two week active phase, the pandemic would have to drag on for 20 weeks to get that number to 0.1%. I doubt there is capacity for that either.
ascorbic 7y ago
The plan also relies on flattening the curve like other countries' plans. They're just calculating that people won't stay in lockdown for months, and that if they put one in place now people will start emerging just in time to hit the peak of the infections.

zepto 7y ago

Recovery is exponential too - it just lags behind the new cases.

tiawav 7y ago

There are 200 Viruses, vaccines only exist for 20 or so. For some you can hardly build immunity (e.g. Dengue fever). "Sure, those who survived the disease will be immune afterwards." There have been reports of re-infections in China and Japan. This may be mistakes - the never were cured - but this could also point to something more severe. Proceed with caution.