6 ms·

It will be impossible for us to permanently stop the spread with half measures. As viral spread continues due to half hearted social distancing, when will we be

It will be impossible for us to permanently stop the spread with half measures. As viral spread continues due to half hearted social distancing, when will we be able to return to normalcy? Given the characteristics of this virus even a few cases floating around seem to be enough to reignite contagion. So we persist in stasis for a month or a year with no end in sight while the economy begins to collapse, which will also destroy lives and lead to humanitarian disaster? And all of that on shoddy evidence which probably is not counting the true case fatality rate due to woeful ignorance of the total number of infected people? This article from a Stanford Professor makes the case that COVID-19 mortality is not as high as initial reports make it seem: https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/a-fiasco-in-the-making-as-the-coronavirus-pandemic-takes-hold-we-are-making-decisions-without-reliable-data/ https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/a-fiasco-in-the-making-a... We also have potential treatments emerging that could alleviate much of the strain on the healthcare system. We need to make rational and strategic decisions here, not decisions based out of fear. Massive and systematic society wide testing is the first step, the second step is the bulk manufacture of demonstrated COVID-19 treatments. The third is ramping up hospital capacity. All of this is so that we can reopen society in a reasonable amount of time prepared to deal with the inevitable spread of this virus.

redisman 7y ago
These current shutdowns are really just to buy some time for all the steps you talked about. Basically get a re-try and try to go for a more SK/Taiwan style approach.
- disgruntledphd2 7y ago
  Yup. And all because people don't understand exponential growth.
oat_bravo_nap 7y ago
South Korea stopped the infection without "full measures."
- dboreham 7y ago
  They acted earlier.
  - Kiro 7y ago
    They also use tools that Americans will never accept (especially not the HN crowd) since it violates privacy.
    - disgruntledphd2 7y ago
      I honestly think that the need is great enough in this case, but there's no way the powers would ever be given back. Mind you, once enough people die, many things will change.
    - NotSammyHagar 7y ago
      The main stupid thing we did was very little testing. Our genius prez kept saying it was no big deal, and they followed policies that in retrospect make it look like they were trying to test less. At least the effective situation in the end was the entire us country has 100 times less testing that the tiny country of S.K. If we had testing and actively tested 2 months ago we'd have see the problems and started dealing with them more aggressively. We stupidly seemed to follow a policy of no visible harm, no preperations necessary.
  - CydeWeys 7y ago
    And more competently. They actually managed to make enough tests in time and use them on all known contacts of any infected individual. We're long past the point of that being remotely possible in the US.
- fgonzag 7y ago
  They were setting testing check points in major highways. It wasn't a full lockdown, because they tested everyone and had enough information to be able to contain it effectively. "If you can't measure it, you can't improve it"
- 7y ago
fennecfoxen 7y ago
> It will be impossible for us to permanently stop the spread with half measures. You're not going to like this, but at this point, no one expects anyone to permanently stop the spread of the virus. It is very contagious, it has a very effective stealth mode, and it is widespread. You should probably expect that over half of the world population will contract this virus. New York's restrictions are primarily to make people contract it more slowly, so that the state (and other states) can deal with it more slowly.
- henryfjordan 7y ago
  Why would we only expect half the world to get it? My understanding is that everyone needs to be eventually exposed in one way or another, either contracting the virus or getting a vaccine (when they are ready).
  - pwaivers 7y ago
    Herd Immunity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity) means that everyone doesn't need to get it. The threshold for COVID-19 is estimated to be between 29-75%.
    - zaphirplane 7y ago
      On a different note in scientific paper what is considered too large an error margin to consider it a value to talk about. If the above is true that makes it what 52%+- 23
  - umanwizard 7y ago
    Assume that everyone who has it spreads it to 2 people on average before dying or recovering. If one of the 2 people you would have spread it to is immune, you will only spread it to 1 person instead, and the total number of infected will not rise.
    - baobabKoodaa 7y ago
dboreham 7y ago
Problem with this line of thinking is it doesn't match up with the body count in the small areas in Italy that have had high infection rates. It probably turns out to be the only choice: there is no plan B where we just let bodies pile up. Hopefully once antibody testing is rolled out (two weeks?) your theory about high undetected infection rate will be proven true.
henryfjordan 7y ago
> Massive and systematic society wide testing is the first step, the second step is the bulk manufacture of demonstrated COVID-19 treatments. The third is ramping up hospital capacity. By the time we would get tests and hospital beds, we'd already be too deep into the crisis for them to matter much. Millions will be dead. Garcetti, the mayor of Los Angeles, said last night that we are shutting down the city to buy time to get more beds, tests, and treatments. Our leaders have a good idea of what's necessary.
- bsder 7y ago
  > Our leaders have a good idea of what's necessary. Some leaders who are listening to doctors and scientists see what is necessary. California should have probably gone into lockdown earlier, but I think this was probably as fast as they could have reasonably moved.

redisman 7y ago

These current shutdowns are really just to buy some time for all the steps you talked about. Basically get a re-try and try to go for a more SK/Taiwan style approach.

disgruntledphd2 7y ago
Yup. And all because people don't understand exponential growth.

oat_bravo_nap 7y ago

South Korea stopped the infection without "full measures."

dboreham 7y ago
They acted earlier.
- Kiro 7y ago
  They also use tools that Americans will never accept (especially not the HN crowd) since it violates privacy.
  - disgruntledphd2 7y ago
    I honestly think that the need is great enough in this case, but there's no way the powers would ever be given back. Mind you, once enough people die, many things will change.
  - NotSammyHagar 7y ago
    The main stupid thing we did was very little testing. Our genius prez kept saying it was no big deal, and they followed policies that in retrospect make it look like they were trying to test less. At least the effective situation in the end was the entire us country has 100 times less testing that the tiny country of S.K. If we had testing and actively tested 2 months ago we'd have see the problems and started dealing with them more aggressively. We stupidly seemed to follow a policy of no visible harm, no preperations necessary.
- CydeWeys 7y ago
  And more competently. They actually managed to make enough tests in time and use them on all known contacts of any infected individual. We're long past the point of that being remotely possible in the US.
fgonzag 7y ago
They were setting testing check points in major highways. It wasn't a full lockdown, because they tested everyone and had enough information to be able to contain it effectively. "If you can't measure it, you can't improve it"
7y ago

fennecfoxen 7y ago

> It will be impossible for us to permanently stop the spread with half measures. You're not going to like this, but at this point, no one expects anyone to permanently stop the spread of the virus. It is very contagious, it has a very effective stealth mode, and it is widespread. You should probably expect that over half of the world population will contract this virus. New York's restrictions are primarily to make people contract it more slowly, so that the state (and other states) can deal with it more slowly.

henryfjordan 7y ago
Why would we only expect half the world to get it? My understanding is that everyone needs to be eventually exposed in one way or another, either contracting the virus or getting a vaccine (when they are ready).
- pwaivers 7y ago
  Herd Immunity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity) means that everyone doesn't need to get it. The threshold for COVID-19 is estimated to be between 29-75%.
  - zaphirplane 7y ago
    On a different note in scientific paper what is considered too large an error margin to consider it a value to talk about. If the above is true that makes it what 52%+- 23
- umanwizard 7y ago
  Assume that everyone who has it spreads it to 2 people on average before dying or recovering. If one of the 2 people you would have spread it to is immune, you will only spread it to 1 person instead, and the total number of infected will not rise.
  - baobabKoodaa 7y ago

dboreham 7y ago

Problem with this line of thinking is it doesn't match up with the body count in the small areas in Italy that have had high infection rates. It probably turns out to be the only choice: there is no plan B where we just let bodies pile up. Hopefully once antibody testing is rolled out (two weeks?) your theory about high undetected infection rate will be proven true.

henryfjordan 7y ago

> Massive and systematic society wide testing is the first step, the second step is the bulk manufacture of demonstrated COVID-19 treatments. The third is ramping up hospital capacity. By the time we would get tests and hospital beds, we'd already be too deep into the crisis for them to matter much. Millions will be dead. Garcetti, the mayor of Los Angeles, said last night that we are shutting down the city to buy time to get more beds, tests, and treatments. Our leaders have a good idea of what's necessary.

bsder 7y ago
> Our leaders have a good idea of what's necessary. Some leaders who are listening to doctors and scientists see what is necessary. California should have probably gone into lockdown earlier, but I think this was probably as fast as they could have reasonably moved.