5 ms·
I don't understand why people keep wasting time with this. Governments are both not doing widespread testing to see how many people have the virus, and taking
by nicc 6y ago
I don't understand why people keep wasting time with this.
Governments are both not doing widespread testing to see how many people have the virus, and taking draconian measures to contain its spread.
From what we know, 90% of the population already could already have it. Every time I read of somebody testing a big group of people a huge percentage has it, but the virus is so mild that they didn't even know—since it caused no symptoms.
Looks like there are many other diseases and problems that cause dozen of times more deaths, so either there's a reason why this is getting special treatment, or it's just a complete loss of common sense here, in my opinion.
- kgwgk 6y ago> Every time I read of somebody testing a big group of people a huge percentage has it Really? Any examples?
- daenz 6y agoNot OP, but NYC estimates 20% have had it based on N=3000[0]. This was back in April. 0. https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/494324-27m-new-yorkers-have-had-coronavirus-preliminary-data-shows https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/494324-27m-new-yorkers...
- wereHamster 6y agoNYC is a drastically different city than even the largest city in Switzerland. NYC has six times higher population density than Zurich. People behave differently, in Switzerland they are far more accepting the social distancing measures than people in the US. You can't compare two cities (or countries) just like that.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- ekianjo 6y agoNYC is peak COVID, and 20% is pretty far from 90%.
- disgruntledphd2 6y agoAnd even in the worst affected European countries, the rates of positive antibody tests are less than 20%, which means we have a long way to go to herd immunity.
- pwr22 6y agoWasn't NYC hit particularly hard though?
- kgwgk 6y agoIs 20% a huge percentage? Definitely it's not from-what-we-know-90%-of-the-population-had-it huge. And those are the numbers from one of the most affected places in the world.
- logicchains 6y agoBy pure coincidence our plutocracy is also a gerontocracy. Imagine you're an overweight rich old man who owns a news media company or runs a country, and you hear about a disease coming along that is most dangerous for overweight old men: basic human nature means there's a good chance you'll be eager to take steps to preserve yourself, regardless of the wider cost.
- andybak 6y agoI'm slightly overweight and I'm pushing 50. The risk of death is fairly low but the risk of having a really horrible few weeks (or potentially longer) is fairly high. And there's plenty of unpleasant stories about long term effects. All in all I'm pretty scared of catching it. I'm glad you're young and fit and happy to accept the lower risk. I'm not so happy about your lack of concern for others.
- ben_w 6y agoTaking a more positive interpretation of what @logichains wrote: given that many governments do have a history of letting lots of people die because it’s to expensive to keep them alive, the only reason this isn’t happening now is because it will affect those leaders personally.
- logicchains 6y ago>given that many governments do have a history of letting lots of people die because it’s to expensive to keep them alive, the only reason this isn’t happening now is because it will affect those leaders personally. AIDS is a good example of this. It's more deadly than coronavirus, but because it was seen as a disease of gay people, governments initially invested extremely little in treatment or stopping the spread. According to WHO, 32 million people have died of AIDS since it appeared, and most of those deaths would have been prevented with easy access to and faster development of the antivirals now used to treat it in rich countries. Malaria is another one. It kills hundreds of thousands of people each year (mostly in Africa), and is largely preventable by relatively simply approaches like mosquito nets. For a small fraction of the trillions of dollars involved in trying to stop covid19, most of these fatalities could be prevented.
- amf12 6y ago> Governments are both not doing widespread testing to see how many people have the virus, and taking draconian measures to contain its spread. I don't have any sources for this, but living in Switzerland, and from what I am hearing from local sources - nobody is being turned away from being tested. I don't believe your statement being true for Switzerland. Early measures, people generally following guidelines has helped reduce the spread of the virus here in Switzerland.
- panpanna 6y ago> From what we know, 90% of the population already could already have it. So we are going to base our global health strategy on your "hunch"?
- nicc 6y agoThat was my plan, yes. World leaders constantly monitor my HN comments for ideas on how to handle this.
- namelosw 6y ago> From what we know, 90% of the population already could already have it. Any source on this?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- Izkata 6y agoA month and a half ago New York may have already been at 20%: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/23/nyregion/coronavirus-antibodies-test-ny.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/23/nyregion/coronavirus-anti...
- marvin 6y agoOkay. So let's press a magic button to make every place in the whole world hit equally hard as NYC, one of the worst-hit cities in the world, with all the death and suffering that entails. Then repeat the process four times. Now we're at 80%, still short of GP's claim. GP knows that their argument is wrong, and is deliberately lying.
- redis_mlc 6y agoThe official testing result is 3.6% positive rate in the SF Bay Area, but we have so many flights from China weekly that it could easily be 50% or more. (fairly unique region)
- rumanator 6y ago> From what we know, 90% of the population already could already have it. Bullshit. Spain, which was hit quite hard, already did widespread antibody studies and the result was that only about 5% of the population might have contracted it. https://english.elpais.com/society/2020-05-14/antibody-study-shows-just-5-of-spaniards-have-contracted-the-coronavirus.html https://english.elpais.com/society/2020-05-14/antibody-study... Educate yourself and please don't spread lies and ignorance.
- nicc 6y agoWhat about this: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/23/nyregion/coronavirus-antibodies-test-ny.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/23/nyregion/coronavirus-anti... Also, you picked 5%, but in your article they also say it's almost 15% in some areas. You're not spreading lies now, right?
- mattmanser 6y agoI also wonder how effective these anti body tests are, and their false negative rate. In actual trials, has a single one actually been shown to work reliably? Here in the UK there's a new story every week about how yet another antibody test has been withdrawn or rejected by PHE because it wasn't accurate.
- lbeltrame 6y agoMost studies I've seen did their own validation because of this. Of course this doesn't mean the tests were accurate (or not).
- raverbashing 6y agoSince when 1 in 5 means 90% now? > Also, you picked 5% You mean, the actual title of the article and the average of the whole country? > Antibody study shows just 5% of Spaniards have contracted the coronavirus
- arcturus17 6y agoYour original point was: > From what we know, 90% of the population already could already have it. Well, no, from what we know, 5% of the population in Spain - one of the hardest-hit countries in the world, I might add - had it. Whether the seroprevalence is up to 15% in some areas is of no consequence to your original point.
- sveme 6y agoPreliminary results of representative sampling in Munich indicates that a low single digit percentage of thw population had it so far. Nothing close to 90%.