3 ms·

I am assuming people would want to see benefits in being infected before they're going to volunteer. We don't have conclusive data that you can only get COVID-

I am assuming people would want to see benefits in being infected before they're going to volunteer. We don't have conclusive data that you can only get COVID-19 once. We don't have conclusive evidence that viral load / exposure volume is what controls the severity of the disease. Right now, it simply looks too risky to attempt; people will volunteer to die painfully, and the ones that survive might not even be spared a second infection. We just don't know right now. More data is necessary. It seems likely to me that exposure to the disease will confer immunity for some period of time, because so many other diseases work that way. But we just don't have solid data that shows that to be the case. (We also don't have data that says the opposite is true.) I kind of have a gut feeling that the total number of people infected is much higher than we think it is, and thus there is less risk. We can watch the states that have reopened to see if that's true (and ship everyone an antibody test with their Census forms or something). More data is being acquired, and with that data, we should be able to make better guesses as to what the next course of action should be. (Reacting to this article specifically, I'd love for the author to get an antibody test. It seems so unlikely to me for people in these very high risk environments to have managed to not get the disease. People travel sick. People wear masks wrong. The disease is incredibly contagious. How could you not get sick? It is all kind of amazing to me.)

Marsymars 7y ago
> I am assuming people would want to see benefits in being infected before they're going to volunteer. Counterpoint: I would volunteer for this today if it was an option.
- newsbinator 7y ago
  I'm curious about your reasoning for that
  - Marsymars 7y ago
    As is, the prime of my life is effectively being wasted; none of my regular pursuits are possible and I can't visit any of my family or friends. For healthy people in my age group there's roughly a 0.1% IFR and with about six decades of life remaining, that works out to about a three week expected loss of my lifespan if I'm infected. If I were able to visit my parents I could do most of their regular shopping/errands for them, decreasing their risk profile. I feel that I'm well informed on the potential risks to myself. Put in reverse - what duration and severity of restrictions to your life would you be willing to endure in exchange for a three-week boost to your life expectancy? I'd even sign up for periodic attempts at re-infection to ensure that I'm (still) immune.
    - creato 7y ago
      A 0.1% chance of death is not the only consequence of infection. As someone in a similar position to you, I'm far more concerned about permanent lung damage or other long term health impacts than death.
      - Marsymars 7y ago
        Yes, I'm familiar with those risks, and would be willing to accept them.
    - maxerickson 7y ago
      The stay at home order here makes exceptions for "family or household members", so people here can go do errands for parents without being in violation of it (it's also not particularly being enforced). The thing is, it's not just a personal decision, increased social contact results in increased spread for everybody, not just a 3 week risk for a given individual. Of course, lots of people are starting from the premise that 100% infection is inevitable, and then apparently tacking on it not being worth slowing things down while interventions and vaccines are researched, in which case it doesn't make any sense to worry about other people (because they think it's a foregone conclusion).
      - Marsymars 7y ago
        Yeah, my parents don't live nearby, I can't visit them without having a plan for a 14-day quarantine on arrival, and then after that, me living with them is more of a risk to them if I haven't been infected beforehand. I'm not really sure how your other points relate to mine? The point of voluntary infection is that my social contacts then wouldn't be a risk to others.
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  Perhaps you would. But with our present state of knowledge, it might be medical malpractice for a hospital to help you to do so.

Marsymars 7y ago

> I am assuming people would want to see benefits in being infected before they're going to volunteer. Counterpoint: I would volunteer for this today if it was an option.

newsbinator 7y ago
I'm curious about your reasoning for that
- Marsymars 7y ago
  As is, the prime of my life is effectively being wasted; none of my regular pursuits are possible and I can't visit any of my family or friends. For healthy people in my age group there's roughly a 0.1% IFR and with about six decades of life remaining, that works out to about a three week expected loss of my lifespan if I'm infected. If I were able to visit my parents I could do most of their regular shopping/errands for them, decreasing their risk profile. I feel that I'm well informed on the potential risks to myself. Put in reverse - what duration and severity of restrictions to your life would you be willing to endure in exchange for a three-week boost to your life expectancy? I'd even sign up for periodic attempts at re-infection to ensure that I'm (still) immune.
  - creato 7y ago
    A 0.1% chance of death is not the only consequence of infection. As someone in a similar position to you, I'm far more concerned about permanent lung damage or other long term health impacts than death.
    - Marsymars 7y ago
      Yes, I'm familiar with those risks, and would be willing to accept them.
  - maxerickson 7y ago
    The stay at home order here makes exceptions for "family or household members", so people here can go do errands for parents without being in violation of it (it's also not particularly being enforced). The thing is, it's not just a personal decision, increased social contact results in increased spread for everybody, not just a 3 week risk for a given individual. Of course, lots of people are starting from the premise that 100% infection is inevitable, and then apparently tacking on it not being worth slowing things down while interventions and vaccines are researched, in which case it doesn't make any sense to worry about other people (because they think it's a foregone conclusion).
    - Marsymars 7y ago
      Yeah, my parents don't live nearby, I can't visit them without having a plan for a 14-day quarantine on arrival, and then after that, me living with them is more of a risk to them if I haven't been infected beforehand. I'm not really sure how your other points relate to mine? The point of voluntary infection is that my social contacts then wouldn't be a risk to others.
AnimalMuppet 7y ago
Perhaps you would. But with our present state of knowledge, it might be medical malpractice for a hospital to help you to do so.