3 ms·

If we shelter in place and the disease is not eradicated, won't it just come back? It seems like we need to either eradicate it 100% or develop herd immunity b

If we shelter in place and the disease is not eradicated, won't it just come back? It seems like we need to either eradicate it 100% or develop herd immunity by exposing as many people as possible. There is clearly value in limiting the rate of infection, but that means the shelter in place is just a rate limit, and we are in for something much longer than just a few weeks.

deelowe 7y ago
Everyone just needs to shelter in place long enough for testing capacity to improve. Early detection is key, but without that, we have to slow the spread.
- Gibbon1 7y ago
  Friends partners family in China were under lockdown for two months as the Chinese got a handle on getting testing up and running. I think the big reason for lock down is to break the transmission chains from a large diffuse network into a bunch of small poorly connected islands. If you do that the disease starts to burn itself out. Uninfected islands stay that way. Infected ones quickly develop heard immunity.
  - deelowe 7y ago
    Makes sense. I'm afraid we're about to be at the point where a large portion of the US will need to shelter in place. I can't imagine us being able to do something like that for 2 months though.
    - shartshooter 7y ago
      We’ve been fortunate in the US to not have to shelter in place for an extended period of time in our history. We’ll get through this, just like everything else. It’ll take time, too many will die, but instead of remembering that most folks will likely complain about being stuck at home. Weddings/concerts/flights are all cancelled and the only way to get things back on track is to shelter in place long enough for us to get testing up and running and to isolate the virus. Half measures in this situation just won’t cut it and the longer we take to accept that, the more will die. Caveat: I’m a fortunate person who has the ability to work remotely. I realize that many don’t have enough savings to make it through a week, much less two months. I hope our safety net is there to support them as well as the business owners who will all be severely impacted.
- matt-attack 7y ago
  How does testing help anything? Other than just providing good reporting. It doesn't address the issue, nor solve the actual underlying problem. I mean, if I'm feeling sick wouldn't I just proceed as if I had it? How doesn't actually knowing change anything? My course of action should be identical.
  - kccqzy 7y ago
    Testing helps. If you do have the virus, it lets you know you do and then you won't leave your home. If there's no testing, you might see that you have no symptoms and mistakenly believe you don't have the virus, go out and infect more people. It's about asymptomatic carriers. That's why everyone needs to stay home until we have enough testing to accurately determine who can safely go out.
    - pmoriarty 7y ago
      In addition: Having the ability to test quickly means you can save hospital isolation wards from unnecessary overcrowding, because you can now know whether a person who comes in with respiratory symptoms actually has Covid-19 rather than having to treat everyone as though they might. "It means you can move from a presumptive stance to a more informed stance"[1] If doctors know you're sick with COVID-19 and your disease is severe enough, they might offer you one of the experimental treatments for it, or you might be offered to participate in one of the hundreds of ongoing research studies. Testing will also help determine where scarce medical resources need to be allocated, which people need to be isolated, and around which people medical personnel need to wear protective equipment. Finally, testing will let epidemiologists track the progress of the disease and have better estimates about how severe it's going to be, and possibly predict in which communities it'll get better or worse. This will help public health officials decide where and when to declare or end quarantines/lockdowns. [1] - https://www.wired.com/story/fda-approves-the-first-commercial-coronavirus-tests-in-the-us/ https://www.wired.com/story/fda-approves-the-first-commercia...
  - ibejoeb 7y ago
    There are some promising drugs that attenuate the virus, and the earlier the intervention, the better. If we can test, and if these drugs do in fact work, we can administer them in an orderly way. A good intro: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vE4_LsftNKM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vE4_LsftNKM
- dx034 7y ago
  Testing alone won't help us unless we can really test everyone. Germany already has broad testing and some areas are discussing to close down testing facilities as there's no benefit from testing at the moment. Positively tested people are as much quarantined as everyone and the personnel used for testing would better treat other patients. Testing only really makes sense if we either can test everyone to ensure we can eradicate the virus by isolation, or if we have medication to define who should receive treatment.
UncleMeat 7y ago
People will still get sick with shelter-in-place, since they need to go to grocery stores and such. This means part of the population has immunity next time. We also may have better treatment options in the not-so-distant future, making everybody better prepared for a future spread.
scarejunba 7y ago
Well, we can see what happens here when China forced quarantine https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/china/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/china/ Currently we're Knight Capital and our algos are blowing money. We could worry about the delay or we could turn everything off.
missingcolours 7y ago
In fact it seems you could flatten the curve too much? Suppose this shelter in place is very successful we hold cases steady for the next 3 weeks. Then what? If we pull the band-aid off we're basically back where we started. The idea with flattening the curve is to have a controlled, lower flow of infections that slowly translates to herd immunity right?
- fuckknows 7y ago
  I don't think anyone is suggesting that we restart everything back to normal in 3 weeks.
fuckknows 7y ago
Much longer, but there is no alternative. If we don't, in a few weeks our hospitals are beyond breaking point.

deelowe 7y ago

Everyone just needs to shelter in place long enough for testing capacity to improve. Early detection is key, but without that, we have to slow the spread.

Gibbon1 7y ago
Friends partners family in China were under lockdown for two months as the Chinese got a handle on getting testing up and running. I think the big reason for lock down is to break the transmission chains from a large diffuse network into a bunch of small poorly connected islands. If you do that the disease starts to burn itself out. Uninfected islands stay that way. Infected ones quickly develop heard immunity.
- deelowe 7y ago
  Makes sense. I'm afraid we're about to be at the point where a large portion of the US will need to shelter in place. I can't imagine us being able to do something like that for 2 months though.
  - shartshooter 7y ago
    We’ve been fortunate in the US to not have to shelter in place for an extended period of time in our history. We’ll get through this, just like everything else. It’ll take time, too many will die, but instead of remembering that most folks will likely complain about being stuck at home. Weddings/concerts/flights are all cancelled and the only way to get things back on track is to shelter in place long enough for us to get testing up and running and to isolate the virus. Half measures in this situation just won’t cut it and the longer we take to accept that, the more will die. Caveat: I’m a fortunate person who has the ability to work remotely. I realize that many don’t have enough savings to make it through a week, much less two months. I hope our safety net is there to support them as well as the business owners who will all be severely impacted.
matt-attack 7y ago
How does testing help anything? Other than just providing good reporting. It doesn't address the issue, nor solve the actual underlying problem. I mean, if I'm feeling sick wouldn't I just proceed as if I had it? How doesn't actually knowing change anything? My course of action should be identical.
- kccqzy 7y ago
  Testing helps. If you do have the virus, it lets you know you do and then you won't leave your home. If there's no testing, you might see that you have no symptoms and mistakenly believe you don't have the virus, go out and infect more people. It's about asymptomatic carriers. That's why everyone needs to stay home until we have enough testing to accurately determine who can safely go out.
  - pmoriarty 7y ago
    In addition: Having the ability to test quickly means you can save hospital isolation wards from unnecessary overcrowding, because you can now know whether a person who comes in with respiratory symptoms actually has Covid-19 rather than having to treat everyone as though they might. "It means you can move from a presumptive stance to a more informed stance"[1] If doctors know you're sick with COVID-19 and your disease is severe enough, they might offer you one of the experimental treatments for it, or you might be offered to participate in one of the hundreds of ongoing research studies. Testing will also help determine where scarce medical resources need to be allocated, which people need to be isolated, and around which people medical personnel need to wear protective equipment. Finally, testing will let epidemiologists track the progress of the disease and have better estimates about how severe it's going to be, and possibly predict in which communities it'll get better or worse. This will help public health officials decide where and when to declare or end quarantines/lockdowns. [1] - https://www.wired.com/story/fda-approves-the-first-commercial-coronavirus-tests-in-the-us/ https://www.wired.com/story/fda-approves-the-first-commercia...
- ibejoeb 7y ago
  There are some promising drugs that attenuate the virus, and the earlier the intervention, the better. If we can test, and if these drugs do in fact work, we can administer them in an orderly way. A good intro: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vE4_LsftNKM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vE4_LsftNKM
dx034 7y ago
Testing alone won't help us unless we can really test everyone. Germany already has broad testing and some areas are discussing to close down testing facilities as there's no benefit from testing at the moment. Positively tested people are as much quarantined as everyone and the personnel used for testing would better treat other patients. Testing only really makes sense if we either can test everyone to ensure we can eradicate the virus by isolation, or if we have medication to define who should receive treatment.

UncleMeat 7y ago

People will still get sick with shelter-in-place, since they need to go to grocery stores and such. This means part of the population has immunity next time. We also may have better treatment options in the not-so-distant future, making everybody better prepared for a future spread.

scarejunba 7y ago

Well, we can see what happens here when China forced quarantine https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/china/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/china/ Currently we're Knight Capital and our algos are blowing money. We could worry about the delay or we could turn everything off.

missingcolours 7y ago

In fact it seems you could flatten the curve too much? Suppose this shelter in place is very successful we hold cases steady for the next 3 weeks. Then what? If we pull the band-aid off we're basically back where we started. The idea with flattening the curve is to have a controlled, lower flow of infections that slowly translates to herd immunity right?

fuckknows 7y ago
I don't think anyone is suggesting that we restart everything back to normal in 3 weeks.

fuckknows 7y ago

Much longer, but there is no alternative. If we don't, in a few weeks our hospitals are beyond breaking point.