5 ms·

We've got this slightly weird "soon but not yet" thing going on at the moment, strangely reminiscent of Mark Carney Governor of the Bank of England's infamous a

by hanoz 7y ago

We've got this slightly weird "soon but not yet" thing going on at the moment, strangely reminiscent of Mark Carney Governor of the Bank of England's infamous and ill fated 'forward guidance' policy. We're being told that some time in the next two weeks all over 70s will be told to self isolate for up to four months. Well if it's going to be four months I think my parents can jolly well start now, thank you very much. Similarly with "not quite but nearly" school closures. It all seems to be predicated on the theory that if we start too early well get bored of it by the time the real pandemonium starts, which sounds like pretty strange thinking to me.

phkahler 7y ago
If you lock down too soon the spread will simply restart post lockdown. If you wait a hit, there will be some percentage of the population already exposed and immune post-lockdown which will slow the spread. That's my thought on timing.
- hellofunk 7y ago
  Do you have any evidence to cite for this? The idea of a lockdown is to stop the spread, and during that time treat and isolate the sick, so the virus outbreak basically ends. When it's over, the idea, as far as I've known, is that the risks are gone. Additionally, a lockdown causes the now-famous "flattening of the curve" to maintain the stability of the healthcare system.
  - CaptArmchair 7y ago
    It's the other way around. You can't stop the spread to a complete halt, only slow it down. If you want to stop the spread, you need to literally quarantine everyone for a months. Why? Because we don't really know yet how long some can infect people. The answer is probably "your mileage will vary" depending on how the disease evolves on an individual level. If you lift restrictions too soon, the few remaining infected will rekindle the epidemic among those who haven't had it yet. > When it's over, the idea, as far as I've known, is that the risks are gone. A highly contagious virus literally comes from Pandora's Box. Once out in the wild, it's extremely difficult to eradicate. We've only managed to willfully eradicate a handful of diseases thus far. Smallpox comes to mind. And that could only happen because of concerted vaccination program one the one hand, and the particular properties of the disease itself on the other hand. Spanish flu disappeared after a year and an estimated 50 million dead - an optimistic estimate because no one really knows the true number. We don't really know why the flu disappeared. One theory simply holds that enough people had contracted the disease and had either survived or died by late 1918. Without vaccination, social distancing and quarantining are the most viable strategies if we hope to slow down the spread in order to avoid the collapse of the healthcare system. Why is that important? Because it's about avoiding as many deaths as we can while this runs it's course. Every young-ish person who ends up in the ICU, is taking up a bed and resources of an older person or someone who suffers a precondition. Or even someone who got into an accident, had a stroke or a heart-attack. It's your individual responsibility to avoid that you get infected, and equally important, that you don't pass it on to anyone else. Elderly and people your age alike. As such, the entire strategy of achieving "herd immunity" is entirely backwards. Herd immunity will be achieved regardless how this plays out in the weeks and months to come. The real question is: At what price? And how many will we allow to die? If the strategy is "let 'em have it", then the second order effect of that decision will be that many will die of causes that would have been treatable in other circumstances.
- wokwokwok 7y ago
  This is one of those “makes sense to me” kind of things, that the modelling shows is wrong. Not “kind of makes sense, but needs a set of specific assumptions, so kind of true but risky.” Wrong. If you wait, you get a different infection rate curve. That’s it. Flat out, it means more people get infected more quickly and more people die. Long term, maybe the results are less clear, but given the best experts in the field are openly questioning the approach, you can be... pretty sure, your gut feel about it is wrong.
  - kitd 7y ago
    Long term is what they're thinking of. Ie next winter and beyond. And there are plenty of experts among the uk Gov't advisers too. "Pandemic" is #1 on the UK's list of national threats, and has been for ages. I'm certain this will have been modelled to death all that time. Tbh, the "correct" advice depends mainly on your assumptions and priorities, not the mathematics.
    - TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
      You may be certain this has been modelled, but that doesn't mean it's been modelled correctly. I'm having some difficulty believing that a government with a decade-long track record of stupidity, craven dishonesty, and aggressive contempt for the poor, weak, and old, has suddenly decided to be a world-leading paragon of evidence-based health policy - in a way that's making epidemiologists in other countries say "Huh? What?" And the question remains - if they're thinking next winter, what difference does two weeks make?
      - phkahler 7y ago
        Two weeks means a significant difference in the number of people infected this season, which means a lower exponent in the rate of spread next time.
  - phkahler 7y ago
    >> but given the best experts in the field are openly questioning the approach, you can be... pretty sure, your gut feel about it is wrong. Aren't there some experts making the policy decisions in the UK or are they leaving it to the interns? There can be disagreements even among experts.
- baq 7y ago
  Italy has what, 0.1% infected currently? And hospitals are overrun already. To get herd immunity going, you need at least 60%. This is a trainwreck in slow motion, reminds me of that Chernobyl part where they knew what they were doing until they didn't.
  - Moru 7y ago
    We do not know of there are any long term immunity yet.
    - ivankolev 7y ago
      In some other thread here someone cited study on monkeys that seems to indicate immunity is indeed built: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22582455 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22582455
  - marcyb5st 7y ago
    To be precise, hospitals are overwhelmed only in Lombardy right now. You are correct in that only a very small percentage of the population got infected, but it is densely clustered in a small area (https://lab24.ilsole24ore.com/coronavirus/ https://lab24.ilsole24ore.com/coronavirus/). However, I agree with your greater point. Reaching herd immunity levels will take months unless a country wants to sacrifice 100.000s or even millions of people.
notahacker 7y ago
The theory that people will get bored is fine, but the idea that people will respect a four month isolation period but not unless they have two weeks to prepare, or not a four month and two week isolation period is where their model perhaps warrants more scepticism ...

by hanoz 7y ago

phkahler 7y ago

If you lock down too soon the spread will simply restart post lockdown. If you wait a hit, there will be some percentage of the population already exposed and immune post-lockdown which will slow the spread. That's my thought on timing.

hellofunk 7y ago
Do you have any evidence to cite for this? The idea of a lockdown is to stop the spread, and during that time treat and isolate the sick, so the virus outbreak basically ends. When it's over, the idea, as far as I've known, is that the risks are gone. Additionally, a lockdown causes the now-famous "flattening of the curve" to maintain the stability of the healthcare system.
- CaptArmchair 7y ago
  It's the other way around. You can't stop the spread to a complete halt, only slow it down. If you want to stop the spread, you need to literally quarantine everyone for a months. Why? Because we don't really know yet how long some can infect people. The answer is probably "your mileage will vary" depending on how the disease evolves on an individual level. If you lift restrictions too soon, the few remaining infected will rekindle the epidemic among those who haven't had it yet. > When it's over, the idea, as far as I've known, is that the risks are gone. A highly contagious virus literally comes from Pandora's Box. Once out in the wild, it's extremely difficult to eradicate. We've only managed to willfully eradicate a handful of diseases thus far. Smallpox comes to mind. And that could only happen because of concerted vaccination program one the one hand, and the particular properties of the disease itself on the other hand. Spanish flu disappeared after a year and an estimated 50 million dead - an optimistic estimate because no one really knows the true number. We don't really know why the flu disappeared. One theory simply holds that enough people had contracted the disease and had either survived or died by late 1918. Without vaccination, social distancing and quarantining are the most viable strategies if we hope to slow down the spread in order to avoid the collapse of the healthcare system. Why is that important? Because it's about avoiding as many deaths as we can while this runs it's course. Every young-ish person who ends up in the ICU, is taking up a bed and resources of an older person or someone who suffers a precondition. Or even someone who got into an accident, had a stroke or a heart-attack. It's your individual responsibility to avoid that you get infected, and equally important, that you don't pass it on to anyone else. Elderly and people your age alike. As such, the entire strategy of achieving "herd immunity" is entirely backwards. Herd immunity will be achieved regardless how this plays out in the weeks and months to come. The real question is: At what price? And how many will we allow to die? If the strategy is "let 'em have it", then the second order effect of that decision will be that many will die of causes that would have been treatable in other circumstances.
wokwokwok 7y ago
This is one of those “makes sense to me” kind of things, that the modelling shows is wrong. Not “kind of makes sense, but needs a set of specific assumptions, so kind of true but risky.” Wrong. If you wait, you get a different infection rate curve. That’s it. Flat out, it means more people get infected more quickly and more people die. Long term, maybe the results are less clear, but given the best experts in the field are openly questioning the approach, you can be... pretty sure, your gut feel about it is wrong.
- kitd 7y ago
  Long term is what they're thinking of. Ie next winter and beyond. And there are plenty of experts among the uk Gov't advisers too. "Pandemic" is #1 on the UK's list of national threats, and has been for ages. I'm certain this will have been modelled to death all that time. Tbh, the "correct" advice depends mainly on your assumptions and priorities, not the mathematics.
  - TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
    You may be certain this has been modelled, but that doesn't mean it's been modelled correctly. I'm having some difficulty believing that a government with a decade-long track record of stupidity, craven dishonesty, and aggressive contempt for the poor, weak, and old, has suddenly decided to be a world-leading paragon of evidence-based health policy - in a way that's making epidemiologists in other countries say "Huh? What?" And the question remains - if they're thinking next winter, what difference does two weeks make?
    - phkahler 7y ago
      Two weeks means a significant difference in the number of people infected this season, which means a lower exponent in the rate of spread next time.
- phkahler 7y ago
  >> but given the best experts in the field are openly questioning the approach, you can be... pretty sure, your gut feel about it is wrong. Aren't there some experts making the policy decisions in the UK or are they leaving it to the interns? There can be disagreements even among experts.
baq 7y ago
Italy has what, 0.1% infected currently? And hospitals are overrun already. To get herd immunity going, you need at least 60%. This is a trainwreck in slow motion, reminds me of that Chernobyl part where they knew what they were doing until they didn't.
- Moru 7y ago
  We do not know of there are any long term immunity yet.
  - ivankolev 7y ago
    In some other thread here someone cited study on monkeys that seems to indicate immunity is indeed built: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22582455 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22582455
- marcyb5st 7y ago
  To be precise, hospitals are overwhelmed only in Lombardy right now. You are correct in that only a very small percentage of the population got infected, but it is densely clustered in a small area (https://lab24.ilsole24ore.com/coronavirus/ https://lab24.ilsole24ore.com/coronavirus/). However, I agree with your greater point. Reaching herd immunity levels will take months unless a country wants to sacrifice 100.000s or even millions of people.

notahacker 7y ago

The theory that people will get bored is fine, but the idea that people will respect a four month isolation period but not unless they have two weeks to prepare, or not a four month and two week isolation period is where their model perhaps warrants more scepticism ...