6 ms·

may it make sense when a pandemic starts next time to preemptively infect and quarantine large group of healthy people in order to have the antibody plasma read

by trhway 7y ago

may it make sense when a pandemic starts next time to preemptively infect and quarantine large group of healthy people in order to have the antibody plasma ready in sufficient quantity by the time when it starts to hit the fan?

msandford 7y ago
Are you volunteering to be one of the unlucky 2%?
- trhway 7y ago
  giving the [good] health and history i don't see any serious risk for me from the virus, and considering that it is hardly a choice - like many i'll most probably get it in time anyway as i don't believe it can be contained until herd immunity is achieved (and many people will die in the meantime until some big breakthrough(s) is achieved like mass availability of the antibody plasma for example) - so personally it is just a matter of getting it earlier or later, getting it in controlled manner/scheduled/prepared/etc. vs. at random time, etc. Some selfish factors may play a role too like having guaranteed medical attention in the low probable case of the things going wrong for example.
- arcticbull 7y ago
  In a young person with no co-morbid conditions, the risk is not 2%, it's 0.1% -- at most, and we're all going to get it. #flattenthecurve is not about containment, it's about slowing the spread so that hospital capacity to care for the small fraction who need it can be ramped to match. Sooner or later some 270 million Americans will have had it, and we'll develop herd immunity. It'll most likely end up a seasonal virus like the flu. With the high R0 and the fact so many people end up with no symptoms, negligible symptoms or mild flu-like symptoms, it can't really be stopped. I'd volunteer. Not that I think we should, though.
- Robotbeat 7y ago
  If it'd save a bunch of lives, I'd volunteer if someone were hired to help my wife with the kids (along with a generous insurance package and wage) and if it were early in the pandemic where there's still plenty of healthcare system capacity.
- dogma1138 7y ago
  People volunteer to donate organs despite a higher likelihood of harm than getting COVID-19 if you are 18-24 without any comorbidities. If this would be an effective solution people would volunteer for sure. The UK had 750,000 people signing up to volunteer for the NHS which could expose them to getting infected in the midst of the epidemic without guarantee of even getting admitted to a hospital if the situation would continue to escalate. If you think you won’t get 1000’s of volunteers for a relatively low risk infection that would put you under 24/7 VIP medical observation and would likely get you first access to any medical assistance required if things would turn to the worse you clearly don’t understand people well enough. And this is without the potential financial and societal benefits those people would directly and indirectly receive. People are doing a lot more dangerous things for a lot less of a pay out in a daily basis.
tlrobinson 7y ago
I don't think you can ethically intentionally infect people, even volunteers, with a potentially fatal disease. Even some small percentage of young and healthy people are dying from COVID-19.
- arcticbull 7y ago
  > Even some small percentage of young and healthy people are dying from COVID-19. Some small percentage of young people are dying from the flu too, it's unfortunate, and it happens. We need to keep our eyes focused on the statistics not the anecdotes. Every disease is potentially fatal. We definitely shouldn't intentionally infect anyone. It's just not necessary.
- FriendlyNormie 7y ago
  People volunteer to be locked in facilities for 30+ days to be injected with potentially fatal new and poorly understood drugs all the time in exchange for a few thousand dollars.
  - arcticbull 7y ago
    True, but in a fast-spreading disease we shouldn't have to solicit folks to voluntarily get infected, we can just grab a few people who've tested positive.
  - trhway 7y ago
    >for a few thousand dollars yep. Even 100K people at $100K would be just $10B, a laughable amount compare to the $6T stimulus in US.
- LatteLazy 7y ago
  Even if its safer to be in that group than not?
- BurningFrog 7y ago
  Maybe that tells us that particular version of ethics has flaws? Either way, people can always infect themselves under most ethics.
devin 7y ago
no
wool_gather 7y ago
Definitely not. If we had that level of preparation, we would be testing, tracing, and isolating to contain the outbreak in the first place. Without having to deliberately put people directly in mortal danger.
eecc 7y ago
No, but you can thaw a couple stem cells, let them specialize toward immune cell lines, replicate to a couple tons and feed them Corona and protein/carb mix.

by trhway 7y ago

msandford 7y ago

Are you volunteering to be one of the unlucky 2%?

trhway 7y ago
giving the [good] health and history i don't see any serious risk for me from the virus, and considering that it is hardly a choice - like many i'll most probably get it in time anyway as i don't believe it can be contained until herd immunity is achieved (and many people will die in the meantime until some big breakthrough(s) is achieved like mass availability of the antibody plasma for example) - so personally it is just a matter of getting it earlier or later, getting it in controlled manner/scheduled/prepared/etc. vs. at random time, etc. Some selfish factors may play a role too like having guaranteed medical attention in the low probable case of the things going wrong for example.
arcticbull 7y ago
In a young person with no co-morbid conditions, the risk is not 2%, it's 0.1% -- at most, and we're all going to get it. #flattenthecurve is not about containment, it's about slowing the spread so that hospital capacity to care for the small fraction who need it can be ramped to match. Sooner or later some 270 million Americans will have had it, and we'll develop herd immunity. It'll most likely end up a seasonal virus like the flu. With the high R0 and the fact so many people end up with no symptoms, negligible symptoms or mild flu-like symptoms, it can't really be stopped. I'd volunteer. Not that I think we should, though.
Robotbeat 7y ago
If it'd save a bunch of lives, I'd volunteer if someone were hired to help my wife with the kids (along with a generous insurance package and wage) and if it were early in the pandemic where there's still plenty of healthcare system capacity.
dogma1138 7y ago
People volunteer to donate organs despite a higher likelihood of harm than getting COVID-19 if you are 18-24 without any comorbidities. If this would be an effective solution people would volunteer for sure. The UK had 750,000 people signing up to volunteer for the NHS which could expose them to getting infected in the midst of the epidemic without guarantee of even getting admitted to a hospital if the situation would continue to escalate. If you think you won’t get 1000’s of volunteers for a relatively low risk infection that would put you under 24/7 VIP medical observation and would likely get you first access to any medical assistance required if things would turn to the worse you clearly don’t understand people well enough. And this is without the potential financial and societal benefits those people would directly and indirectly receive. People are doing a lot more dangerous things for a lot less of a pay out in a daily basis.

tlrobinson 7y ago

I don't think you can ethically intentionally infect people, even volunteers, with a potentially fatal disease. Even some small percentage of young and healthy people are dying from COVID-19.

arcticbull 7y ago
> Even some small percentage of young and healthy people are dying from COVID-19. Some small percentage of young people are dying from the flu too, it's unfortunate, and it happens. We need to keep our eyes focused on the statistics not the anecdotes. Every disease is potentially fatal. We definitely shouldn't intentionally infect anyone. It's just not necessary.
FriendlyNormie 7y ago
People volunteer to be locked in facilities for 30+ days to be injected with potentially fatal new and poorly understood drugs all the time in exchange for a few thousand dollars.
- arcticbull 7y ago
  True, but in a fast-spreading disease we shouldn't have to solicit folks to voluntarily get infected, we can just grab a few people who've tested positive.
- trhway 7y ago
  >for a few thousand dollars yep. Even 100K people at $100K would be just $10B, a laughable amount compare to the $6T stimulus in US.
LatteLazy 7y ago
Even if its safer to be in that group than not?
BurningFrog 7y ago
Maybe that tells us that particular version of ethics has flaws? Either way, people can always infect themselves under most ethics.

devin 7y ago

wool_gather 7y ago

Definitely not. If we had that level of preparation, we would be testing, tracing, and isolating to contain the outbreak in the first place. Without having to deliberately put people directly in mortal danger.

eecc 7y ago

No, but you can thaw a couple stem cells, let them specialize toward immune cell lines, replicate to a couple tons and feed them Corona and protein/carb mix.