4 ms·

I think NYC might of solved it with the antibodies test. They plan on letting people with the antibodies go back to work. Plus the test is easier to make that t

I think NYC might of solved it with the antibodies test. They plan on letting people with the antibodies go back to work. Plus the test is easier to make that the test for the virus.

jeremyjh 7y ago
That doesn't really solve anything. If 20% of our population got the disease in the same six month period the health care system would collapse entirely and we'd be looking at up to 10% CFR. Millions and millions of people dead.
- bagacrap 7y ago
  99% of cases are mild as per Korea's data, so no, we would not have 10% mortality
  - jeremyjh 7y ago
    You can have a 1% CFR if your health services are functioning. The point is that they won't be if everyone gets it at the same time. In any case 99% are not mild; at least 20% are serious and require medical intervention. If you stop treating them...they die.
    - DeonPenny 7y ago
      The data doesn't show 20% need medical treatment. 1% need that. 19% are getting as sick as the flu at most. 80% literally couldn't tell if they were sick or not.
      - xref 7y ago
        I haven’t seen any numbers of confirmed infections that match a 1% hospitalization rate. Heck I haven’t even seen an ICU rate that low. Have a link?
        bagacrap 7y ago
        https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/south-korea/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/south-kore... 99% of active cases in Korea are mild. There is some difference between countries in terms of reporting but typically "mild" indicates no hospitalization, "severe" requires hospitalization and "critical" indicates ICU. It's hard to estimate true hospitalization rate when you don't know the spread of the disease, and we don't have good data for that anywhere. But here is a repo with the data we do have: https://github.com/beoutbreakprepared/nCoV2019 https://github.com/beoutbreakprepared/nCoV2019
- DeonPenny 7y ago
  That only if thats true and the number of infected are higher and alot people either got over it and just didn't know they were infected.
thelean12 7y ago
Wouldn't this encourage people to seek out the virus and get sick so they can get back to work sooner?
- DeonPenny 7y ago
  Not at risk people which are the people overwhelming the population. Right now though people who a healthy in the same houses as people who are sick potentially getting themselves sick again
  - jobigoud 7y ago
    Also all the people that are at-risk but financially in a really bad place. Letting cured people go back to life as normal while the others stay in quarantine indefinitely will create some weird unintended consequences.
    - DeonPenny 7y ago
      Yeh but having everyone financially at risk would crash the economy. Making everyone poor will just break everything and I really don't believe the government will help. The US government isn't built to function that way.
tonyedgecombe 7y ago
This would be a massive help for healthcare. I can't see how it would work for the general population though, are you going to split society into two, one group who are allowed out and another that have to lock themselves away.
- thu2111 7y ago
  Yes, with a leaky valve on the locked down people, perhaps ordered by job criticality/working-from-home possibility. The valve is then adjusted to ensure hospitals are maxed out all the time. Is there any other exit path? Even a vaccine would need to be handled like that.

I think NYC might of solved it with the antibodies test. They plan on letting people with the antibodies go back to work. Plus the test is easier to make that the test for the virus.

jeremyjh 7y ago

That doesn't really solve anything. If 20% of our population got the disease in the same six month period the health care system would collapse entirely and we'd be looking at up to 10% CFR. Millions and millions of people dead.

bagacrap 7y ago
99% of cases are mild as per Korea's data, so no, we would not have 10% mortality
- jeremyjh 7y ago
  You can have a 1% CFR if your health services are functioning. The point is that they won't be if everyone gets it at the same time. In any case 99% are not mild; at least 20% are serious and require medical intervention. If you stop treating them...they die.
  - DeonPenny 7y ago
    The data doesn't show 20% need medical treatment. 1% need that. 19% are getting as sick as the flu at most. 80% literally couldn't tell if they were sick or not.
    - xref 7y ago
      I haven’t seen any numbers of confirmed infections that match a 1% hospitalization rate. Heck I haven’t even seen an ICU rate that low. Have a link?
      - bagacrap 7y ago
        https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/south-korea/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/south-kore... 99% of active cases in Korea are mild. There is some difference between countries in terms of reporting but typically "mild" indicates no hospitalization, "severe" requires hospitalization and "critical" indicates ICU. It's hard to estimate true hospitalization rate when you don't know the spread of the disease, and we don't have good data for that anywhere. But here is a repo with the data we do have: https://github.com/beoutbreakprepared/nCoV2019 https://github.com/beoutbreakprepared/nCoV2019
DeonPenny 7y ago
That only if thats true and the number of infected are higher and alot people either got over it and just didn't know they were infected.

thelean12 7y ago

Wouldn't this encourage people to seek out the virus and get sick so they can get back to work sooner?

DeonPenny 7y ago
Not at risk people which are the people overwhelming the population. Right now though people who a healthy in the same houses as people who are sick potentially getting themselves sick again
- jobigoud 7y ago
  Also all the people that are at-risk but financially in a really bad place. Letting cured people go back to life as normal while the others stay in quarantine indefinitely will create some weird unintended consequences.
  - DeonPenny 7y ago
    Yeh but having everyone financially at risk would crash the economy. Making everyone poor will just break everything and I really don't believe the government will help. The US government isn't built to function that way.

tonyedgecombe 7y ago

This would be a massive help for healthcare. I can't see how it would work for the general population though, are you going to split society into two, one group who are allowed out and another that have to lock themselves away.

thu2111 7y ago
Yes, with a leaky valve on the locked down people, perhaps ordered by job criticality/working-from-home possibility. The valve is then adjusted to ensure hospitals are maxed out all the time. Is there any other exit path? Even a vaccine would need to be handled like that.