6 ms·

It will also result in illegal Corona rave parties, with the young, that are at very low risk, preferring to contract it and get on with their lifes.

JulianMorrison 6y ago
Except that they'll contract it, spread it to their family, some of them will actually die of it, and a lot more will suffer long term side effects that may be subtle but still dangerous. For example, this disease seems to cause blood clots. You could be fully recovered and drop dead half a year later from a clot breaking loose and getting lodged in your heart.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  Even if it's as risky as you're implying, which I'm not sure it is, I think a lot of people would do it anyway. Drunk driving is surely a stupider risk, but it happens all the time.
  - HarryHirsch 6y ago
    Drunk driving is surely a stupider risk, but it happens all the time It happens very much for the same reason: it's good for business. Can you imagine the local cops and especially the local judges get serious on DUI's and hand out real prison sentences (5 or 10 years for first offense) for drunk driving? I can't. The local restaurateurs would be dead set against it.
    - godelski 6y ago
      There's plenty of evidence that draconian laws aren't effective. So I'm not sure that a 5-10 year sentence would stop people from drunk driving. Plus, I'm pretty sure the corrections lobby has more power than the restaurant lobbies.
- gruez 6y ago
  >For example, this disease seems to cause blood clots. You could be fully recovered and drop dead half a year later from a clot breaking loose and getting lodged in your heart. Isn't blood clots a side effect from lying in hospital beds all day, rather than the disease itself?
  - HarryHirsch 6y ago
    No. Coronaplague-related coagulopathies are well-documented.
  - JulianMorrison 6y ago
    It seems to be an endothelial disease. And it causes blood to clot in small vessels all over the body. This may be a mechanism by which is damages the lungs (as well as broken off clots lodging there).
- Slartie 6y ago
  > spread it to their family Family, friends, grandparents, colleagues at work. And those will undoubtedly spread it further, until it eventually reaches people that it actually kills. There simply is no way to safely perform a deliberate "self-infection" in order to get antibodies other than by committing to a radical externally-enforced quarantine for the duration of the infection. And I personally wouldn't trust most of the prime candidates for such a self-infection (young adults fed up with the lack of parties and entertainment) to be responsible enough for that, which is why I confront any ideas that might incentivize such behavior, like immunity passports, with extreme doubt and caution.
  - JulianMorrison 6y ago
    They'd have to quarantine from the moment of potential infection too, because of asymptomatic spread.
    - Slartie 6y ago
      When talking about deliberate self-infection, I assumed that there was no "possible" infection. If someone self-infects in an organized fashion, he knows exactly with nearly 100% certainty the point in time at which he became infected, because that would be when he exposed himself to the virus deliberately in a way that practically guarantees a successful infection.
- godelski 6y ago
  I'm not sure what you mean. You act like you can just go through life and never contract covid. Even if somehow we get a vaccine in a year (which would be a technological marvel) it looks like most people will get it. So why not get it in a controlled environment where you can minimize contact and spread while gaining immunity (which is what we want young and healthy to do so that we can build herd immunity)? Will there be risks and accidents? Of course, nothing is perfect. But some control sounds like a much better environment than just letting it happen completely uncontrolled.
  - HarryHirsch 6y ago
    The Chinese, the South Koreans and the New Zealanders managed to eradicate coronaplague through good old epidemiological detective work. It's looking good in the European countries, too, number of new infections declining. Why isn't this discussed in the context of the US? (Answer: you'd need proper testing, paid sick leave and especially paid quarantine, but that kind of public health measures is politically unthinkable. My institution "recommends" quarantine for potentially exposed workers, and that isn't enough.)
    - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
      The Chinese and the South Koreans did not eradicate it and do not expect they'll be able to. 100 million people are under lockdown orders in China right now.
      - HarryHirsch 6y ago
        The number of new infections in South Korea is low, and I fully expect the Koreans to squash any new clusters that may appear. It helps that the population is onboard with the public health measures; when they had that cluster that originated in a nightspot they promptly shut down nightspots again, and that didn't trigger protests. The Chinese have that problem with their porous border with Russia and North Korea, where the pestilence is uncontrolled. It's a continuous source of new cases, but I expect that these will not spread far.
  - 6y ago
rglullis 6y ago
As long as it was completely voluntary and that there was a very strict 3-week quarantine after, I really wish this was an option. A quick search tells me the US has about 5 million hotel rooms. Take all these hotels that are closed/empty and use them as Variolation centers. Let people come out only after they tested negative for the presence of the virus and positive for the antibody. Split the $1200.00 between the person and the hotel owner, get costs of health insurance also covered by patient and hotel owners. Granted, there are still very serious ethical issues, in the sense that we don't know if there are any long-term damages caused by the virus. But at least it will be an option for those who oppose the current isolation rules, it requires skin in the game from everyone involved and it could work almost as a damage-reduction policy (as the infected ones would not go back home until they are cleared)
- AmericanChopper 6y ago
  Creating the incentive is still a problem though. If a certain percentage of those people require hospitalization, then you have a limited capacity for how many people can voluntarily infect themselves. The best case scenario would be that infections are successfully rationed, and you end up with a government imposed class system of immune/not-immune. The more likely scenario is that you can’t effectively control voluntary infection, and create the serious risk of running out of hospital beds. And that’s really just the logistical challenge, putting aside a number of other ethical concerns, which include the government saying “in order to regain your liberty, you must infect yourself with a deadly virus”.
  - remote_phone 6y ago
    35% are completely asymptomatic, 45% have mild symptoms, 15% need hospitalization and 2-3% die, mostly old people. Set up a hotel in Vegas with 3000 rooms, 450 ICU beds. Start with people under 30 years old. Have people get infected with a weakened version of the virus. In the first 1 or 2 iterations of people, measure the antibodies in each person, and do a test for how long people are contagious for. We STILL don’t know this for a fact. Also measure how long it takes for people to become immune. Do tests like figure out which people are more susceptible to severe symptoms or which people are more likely to have asymptomatic symptoms. Again, we STILL don’t know this. Cycle the asymptomatic and non-contagious people out first and keep doing it until the ICU beds are full. As an ICU bed becomes empty add the appropriate number of people into the test to get them infected. This seems ethical to me. I bet a lot of younger people would be willing to do this especially if their chance of death is 0.1% or lower and they can go back to work sooner. Once we gather valuable data from this, then move up in terms of risk and keep going until we have herd immunity. I’m almost 50, with a few comorbidities but if I knew I would get a weakened version of the virus with dedicated bed and top health care, not only would I volunteer but I would also pay for it out of my own pocket. I’m sick of being afraid and part of the fear is the lack of understanding and misinformation that is being spread. We need science To answer a lot of questions but they aren’t very helpful right now, or at least they aren’t answering the questions we need. We need volunteers to get themselves infected so that we understand what is going on with this virus. if we can do this in a predictable and safe way and allow science to learn from it it’s a win win. We need to stop worrying about ethics especially if people are willing to volunteer themselves.
LatteLazy 6y ago
This is the main actual reason.
Uehreka 6y ago
Between the fact that a nontrivial number of 20-30 year olds have died, and the serious but poorly understood post-Corona symptoms which may be chronic or lifelong (blood clots, paralysis, lung tissue scarring/reduced lung capacity, Corona Toe, etc) I don’t think any 20-something who’s been reading the news is going to be too keen on the idea of “just getting it over with”. There may be less well-informed people who would be down for something like this, but it’s not a decision that would be driven by a realistic appraisal of what we know and what we know we don’t know.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  I mean, it depends on how many things are locked behind immunity passports. If it's just a convenience that exempts you from international travel quarantines, sure, that doesn't really change the calculus. If bars reopen in July for immune people and 2022 for everyone else... I think there are a lot of young party animals who legitimately like clubbing enough that they'd consider it worth the risk.
- ramraj07 6y ago
  Not sure if you've been to a college town in recent years. I doubt more than 10% of the American student population is that forward thinking.
DeonPenny 6y ago
That's going to happen anyone way. There are parties happening at least in the states. I don't know if its a good idea to prevent people from living their lives in this way.

JulianMorrison 6y ago

Except that they'll contract it, spread it to their family, some of them will actually die of it, and a lot more will suffer long term side effects that may be subtle but still dangerous. For example, this disease seems to cause blood clots. You could be fully recovered and drop dead half a year later from a clot breaking loose and getting lodged in your heart.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
Even if it's as risky as you're implying, which I'm not sure it is, I think a lot of people would do it anyway. Drunk driving is surely a stupider risk, but it happens all the time.
- HarryHirsch 6y ago
  Drunk driving is surely a stupider risk, but it happens all the time It happens very much for the same reason: it's good for business. Can you imagine the local cops and especially the local judges get serious on DUI's and hand out real prison sentences (5 or 10 years for first offense) for drunk driving? I can't. The local restaurateurs would be dead set against it.
  - godelski 6y ago
    There's plenty of evidence that draconian laws aren't effective. So I'm not sure that a 5-10 year sentence would stop people from drunk driving. Plus, I'm pretty sure the corrections lobby has more power than the restaurant lobbies.
gruez 6y ago
>For example, this disease seems to cause blood clots. You could be fully recovered and drop dead half a year later from a clot breaking loose and getting lodged in your heart. Isn't blood clots a side effect from lying in hospital beds all day, rather than the disease itself?
- HarryHirsch 6y ago
  No. Coronaplague-related coagulopathies are well-documented.
- JulianMorrison 6y ago
  It seems to be an endothelial disease. And it causes blood to clot in small vessels all over the body. This may be a mechanism by which is damages the lungs (as well as broken off clots lodging there).
Slartie 6y ago
> spread it to their family Family, friends, grandparents, colleagues at work. And those will undoubtedly spread it further, until it eventually reaches people that it actually kills. There simply is no way to safely perform a deliberate "self-infection" in order to get antibodies other than by committing to a radical externally-enforced quarantine for the duration of the infection. And I personally wouldn't trust most of the prime candidates for such a self-infection (young adults fed up with the lack of parties and entertainment) to be responsible enough for that, which is why I confront any ideas that might incentivize such behavior, like immunity passports, with extreme doubt and caution.
- JulianMorrison 6y ago
  They'd have to quarantine from the moment of potential infection too, because of asymptomatic spread.
  - Slartie 6y ago
    When talking about deliberate self-infection, I assumed that there was no "possible" infection. If someone self-infects in an organized fashion, he knows exactly with nearly 100% certainty the point in time at which he became infected, because that would be when he exposed himself to the virus deliberately in a way that practically guarantees a successful infection.
godelski 6y ago
I'm not sure what you mean. You act like you can just go through life and never contract covid. Even if somehow we get a vaccine in a year (which would be a technological marvel) it looks like most people will get it. So why not get it in a controlled environment where you can minimize contact and spread while gaining immunity (which is what we want young and healthy to do so that we can build herd immunity)? Will there be risks and accidents? Of course, nothing is perfect. But some control sounds like a much better environment than just letting it happen completely uncontrolled.
- HarryHirsch 6y ago
  The Chinese, the South Koreans and the New Zealanders managed to eradicate coronaplague through good old epidemiological detective work. It's looking good in the European countries, too, number of new infections declining. Why isn't this discussed in the context of the US? (Answer: you'd need proper testing, paid sick leave and especially paid quarantine, but that kind of public health measures is politically unthinkable. My institution "recommends" quarantine for potentially exposed workers, and that isn't enough.)
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    The Chinese and the South Koreans did not eradicate it and do not expect they'll be able to. 100 million people are under lockdown orders in China right now.
    - HarryHirsch 6y ago
      The number of new infections in South Korea is low, and I fully expect the Koreans to squash any new clusters that may appear. It helps that the population is onboard with the public health measures; when they had that cluster that originated in a nightspot they promptly shut down nightspots again, and that didn't trigger protests. The Chinese have that problem with their porous border with Russia and North Korea, where the pestilence is uncontrolled. It's a continuous source of new cases, but I expect that these will not spread far.
- 6y ago

rglullis 6y ago

As long as it was completely voluntary and that there was a very strict 3-week quarantine after, I really wish this was an option. A quick search tells me the US has about 5 million hotel rooms. Take all these hotels that are closed/empty and use them as Variolation centers. Let people come out only after they tested negative for the presence of the virus and positive for the antibody. Split the $1200.00 between the person and the hotel owner, get costs of health insurance also covered by patient and hotel owners. Granted, there are still very serious ethical issues, in the sense that we don't know if there are any long-term damages caused by the virus. But at least it will be an option for those who oppose the current isolation rules, it requires skin in the game from everyone involved and it could work almost as a damage-reduction policy (as the infected ones would not go back home until they are cleared)

AmericanChopper 6y ago
Creating the incentive is still a problem though. If a certain percentage of those people require hospitalization, then you have a limited capacity for how many people can voluntarily infect themselves. The best case scenario would be that infections are successfully rationed, and you end up with a government imposed class system of immune/not-immune. The more likely scenario is that you can’t effectively control voluntary infection, and create the serious risk of running out of hospital beds. And that’s really just the logistical challenge, putting aside a number of other ethical concerns, which include the government saying “in order to regain your liberty, you must infect yourself with a deadly virus”.
- remote_phone 6y ago
  35% are completely asymptomatic, 45% have mild symptoms, 15% need hospitalization and 2-3% die, mostly old people. Set up a hotel in Vegas with 3000 rooms, 450 ICU beds. Start with people under 30 years old. Have people get infected with a weakened version of the virus. In the first 1 or 2 iterations of people, measure the antibodies in each person, and do a test for how long people are contagious for. We STILL don’t know this for a fact. Also measure how long it takes for people to become immune. Do tests like figure out which people are more susceptible to severe symptoms or which people are more likely to have asymptomatic symptoms. Again, we STILL don’t know this. Cycle the asymptomatic and non-contagious people out first and keep doing it until the ICU beds are full. As an ICU bed becomes empty add the appropriate number of people into the test to get them infected. This seems ethical to me. I bet a lot of younger people would be willing to do this especially if their chance of death is 0.1% or lower and they can go back to work sooner. Once we gather valuable data from this, then move up in terms of risk and keep going until we have herd immunity. I’m almost 50, with a few comorbidities but if I knew I would get a weakened version of the virus with dedicated bed and top health care, not only would I volunteer but I would also pay for it out of my own pocket. I’m sick of being afraid and part of the fear is the lack of understanding and misinformation that is being spread. We need science To answer a lot of questions but they aren’t very helpful right now, or at least they aren’t answering the questions we need. We need volunteers to get themselves infected so that we understand what is going on with this virus. if we can do this in a predictable and safe way and allow science to learn from it it’s a win win. We need to stop worrying about ethics especially if people are willing to volunteer themselves.

LatteLazy 6y ago

This is the main actual reason.

Uehreka 6y ago

Between the fact that a nontrivial number of 20-30 year olds have died, and the serious but poorly understood post-Corona symptoms which may be chronic or lifelong (blood clots, paralysis, lung tissue scarring/reduced lung capacity, Corona Toe, etc) I don’t think any 20-something who’s been reading the news is going to be too keen on the idea of “just getting it over with”. There may be less well-informed people who would be down for something like this, but it’s not a decision that would be driven by a realistic appraisal of what we know and what we know we don’t know.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
I mean, it depends on how many things are locked behind immunity passports. If it's just a convenience that exempts you from international travel quarantines, sure, that doesn't really change the calculus. If bars reopen in July for immune people and 2022 for everyone else... I think there are a lot of young party animals who legitimately like clubbing enough that they'd consider it worth the risk.
ramraj07 6y ago
Not sure if you've been to a college town in recent years. I doubt more than 10% of the American student population is that forward thinking.

DeonPenny 6y ago

That's going to happen anyone way. There are parties happening at least in the states. I don't know if its a good idea to prevent people from living their lives in this way.