6 ms·

>It might be more economically efficient (and convenient) for the strong and healthy to purposefully self-infect If someone told me I should deliberately catch

>It might be more economically efficient (and convenient) for the strong and healthy to purposefully self-infect If someone told me I should deliberately catch a cold I'd say no. What about Ebola? I'd say no! A germ that I don't know? I'd say no! If a police patrol arrived somewhere and someone ran away, that person would be suspicious. If I'm asked to get any germ I'd suspect that it's very dangerous, even if it was just a cold. So telling people to infect themselves deliberately won't work.

steveeq1 6y ago
Yeah, but strong young healthy won't die from it, but grandma will. Best to self-infect and quarantine so you don't accidentily infect grandma. It's the civil thing to do.
- Tomte 6y ago
  That's wrong. The probability of dying is much lower when you're young and without obvious preconditions, but there are twenty year old patients dying that seemed perfectly healthy.
  - steveeq1 6y ago
    That's an outlier.
    - willbw 6y ago
      Yes but it's still a significant risk, would you not say? The coronavirus outbreak itself could be described as an outlier event, should we discount it?
      - steveeq1 6y ago
        No, it's not a "significant risk". It's basically the flu to the young. The IFR for that age range in good health is basically in the ballpark of the flu, which is a rounding error.
        zwaps 6y ago
        Long term effects may be much more serious than Flu, as this thing eats your lungs and possibly other organs. Just looking at IFR is not enough. We simply do not know yet whether it is a good idea to infect everyone. Why is everyone here a medical expert?
        steveeq1 6y ago
        It doesn't "eat into your lungs", and the great bulk of cases are mild.
        seppin 6y ago
        > No, it's not a "significant risk". It's basically the flu to the young. Normally being wrong on the internet is just ignorable, this isn't. At its best, this is 10x more deadly that the flu (more so for young people because almost no one dies of flu while young). You can dismiss that if you like, most people are right to not. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-younger-people-healthy-risk-death-intensive-care-who-a9446976.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-younge... https://www.bbc.com/news/health-52003804 https://www.bbc.com/news/health-52003804
irishcoffee 6y ago
I’d do it. Everyone is going to catch this. I think I already had it (doesn’t everyone?) but in the event I didn’t, if I could volunteer to get infected I would do it.
- svd4anything 6y ago
  I’m assuming because you are sure having it once will give you some immunity? It’s really unclear if that is true and I respectfully disagree with those who same it is more likely than not.
  - irishcoffee 6y ago
    Everyone is going to catch this. Either I wait around for it to happen or I volunteer. I’d rather volunteer.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - steveeq1 6y ago
    Stop spreading misinformation, there were studies in South Korea that say you won't reinfect after you get it. That's why the strong and healthy can help by self-infecting.
    - tpnCC 6y ago
      Not exactly. Some hundreds of patients were thought to have gotten rid of the virus during hospital stay and treatment and sent home after confirming through RT-PCR tests. But they were found to be covid+ve afterwards. Studies indicated that the +ve tests were 'likely' from the genetic material that lingered from the first infection and not from re-infection. https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-reinfections-were-false-positives.html https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-reinfections-were-fa... However, they do not declare that you cannot get re-infected two months down the line or two years down the line. We don't have that information about immunity yet.
IG_Semmelweiss 6y ago
No. There is documented cases where people in the middle ages would deliberately take small doses of poison to develop inmunity to poison itself. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormesis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormesis If people could deliberately infect yourself with a weak version of Covid19 , they would. Problem is strains are still somewhat poorly understood so its hard to understand who carries a tough strain vs weak one.

steveeq1 6y ago

Yeah, but strong young healthy won't die from it, but grandma will. Best to self-infect and quarantine so you don't accidentily infect grandma. It's the civil thing to do.

Tomte 6y ago
That's wrong. The probability of dying is much lower when you're young and without obvious preconditions, but there are twenty year old patients dying that seemed perfectly healthy.
- steveeq1 6y ago
  That's an outlier.
  - willbw 6y ago
    Yes but it's still a significant risk, would you not say? The coronavirus outbreak itself could be described as an outlier event, should we discount it?
    - steveeq1 6y ago
      No, it's not a "significant risk". It's basically the flu to the young. The IFR for that age range in good health is basically in the ballpark of the flu, which is a rounding error.
      - zwaps 6y ago
        Long term effects may be much more serious than Flu, as this thing eats your lungs and possibly other organs. Just looking at IFR is not enough. We simply do not know yet whether it is a good idea to infect everyone. Why is everyone here a medical expert?
        steveeq1 6y ago
        It doesn't "eat into your lungs", and the great bulk of cases are mild.
      - seppin 6y ago
        > No, it's not a "significant risk". It's basically the flu to the young. Normally being wrong on the internet is just ignorable, this isn't. At its best, this is 10x more deadly that the flu (more so for young people because almost no one dies of flu while young). You can dismiss that if you like, most people are right to not. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-younger-people-healthy-risk-death-intensive-care-who-a9446976.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-younge... https://www.bbc.com/news/health-52003804 https://www.bbc.com/news/health-52003804

irishcoffee 6y ago

I’d do it. Everyone is going to catch this. I think I already had it (doesn’t everyone?) but in the event I didn’t, if I could volunteer to get infected I would do it.

svd4anything 6y ago
I’m assuming because you are sure having it once will give you some immunity? It’s really unclear if that is true and I respectfully disagree with those who same it is more likely than not.
- irishcoffee 6y ago
  Everyone is going to catch this. Either I wait around for it to happen or I volunteer. I’d rather volunteer.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- steveeq1 6y ago
  Stop spreading misinformation, there were studies in South Korea that say you won't reinfect after you get it. That's why the strong and healthy can help by self-infecting.
  - tpnCC 6y ago
    Not exactly. Some hundreds of patients were thought to have gotten rid of the virus during hospital stay and treatment and sent home after confirming through RT-PCR tests. But they were found to be covid+ve afterwards. Studies indicated that the +ve tests were 'likely' from the genetic material that lingered from the first infection and not from re-infection. https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-reinfections-were-false-positives.html https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-reinfections-were-fa... However, they do not declare that you cannot get re-infected two months down the line or two years down the line. We don't have that information about immunity yet.

IG_Semmelweiss 6y ago

No. There is documented cases where people in the middle ages would deliberately take small doses of poison to develop inmunity to poison itself. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormesis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormesis If people could deliberately infect yourself with a weak version of Covid19 , they would. Problem is strains are still somewhat poorly understood so its hard to understand who carries a tough strain vs weak one.