5 ms·

Not sure why so many think this way. In worst case scenario- we are never able to create a vaccine. So you expect the world to stay in lockdown mode for eternit

Not sure why so many think this way. In worst case scenario- we are never able to create a vaccine. So you expect the world to stay in lockdown mode for eternity?

baddox 6y ago
It's easy to be post-lockdown but not post-pandemic. Many places in the United States have been doing this for weeks now, and we're seeing how that's going.
- harpratap 6y ago
  > It's easy to be post-lockdown but not post-pandemic What's the difference?
  - nthj 6y ago
    A lockdown is a a government-issued stay-at-home order. The presence of such an order should be, but isn't necessarily, aligned with the presence of a prevalent disease.
    - harpratap 6y ago
      Not asking for a literal definition of those words. I'm asking what's the difference in living in "post-lockdown" world vs "post-pandemic" world. Personally I think masks will become more prevalent in the west, like it is already in the east. And more remote jobs. In the grand scheme of things, these two changes seem minor to me. So what is it that I'm missing here? What grand changes in the way we live are we expecting in "post-pandemic" world?
      - perl4ever 6y ago
        I think eliminating indoor activities that involve being around a lot of other people in a confined space would be a profound change to society. Some bar owners seem very upset, to the point where they are equating closing bars with denying their right to exist and make a living and suing the government.
  - shard 6y ago
    Here are 3 that popped into my mind after thinking about it for a minute. Maybe you can come up with others. If social distancing remains in effect, post-pandemic world would have much lower density in offices/restaurants/other large gathering locations with seating, increasing real estate costs, which will be passed onto the consumer. If social distancing is required on transportation as well, this would dramatically increase air travel costs. Not only would this require heavy rethinking in any locale which relies on tourism, but also for any conferences/conventions which have a large international attendee component, perhaps requiring a reduction in scope, or being cancelled completely as the economics no longer makes sense. In-patient hospital costs will also rise as patients can no longer be placed close to each other. Number of tele-medicine providers will rise, and how this will affect the quality of care will have to be seen.
    - harpratap 6y ago
      This is all based on the assumption that the current medical tech will stay as it is. But in reality what we are seeing is much faster tests (we have already gone done from few days to get back results to couple of hours now) and much better medical care once you are infected. Which means it will become a lot easier to separate the infected from the rest of the population, rendering the healthy population to work and move freely like they used to. You can do a quick test before boarding an international flight and permitted to enter the country only if you're healthy. Contact tracing apps can easily show Green-Red passes to prove whether you can enter any restaurant, shop, hospital, etc.
      - shard 6y ago
        That's a good point. As testing technology advances, many of these will be mitigated. Although until the tests get to the point where they can give results within minutes, like the flu tests have progressed to, it will not be a complete mitigation. Another issue is cost, as once testing becomes common place, I would expect the fees to be passed onto the consumer. Also, people may not want to put up with constant testing, e.g. once every 2 weeks, unless it's a condition for employment, which might be the case for any job which requires high contact with the population.
      - 6y ago
- robohoe 6y ago
  Certain states are doing well post-lockdown. Illinois only report 614 new cases of COVID-19 and six deaths today (lowest numbers since March).
  - joering2 6y ago
    Aren’t we at the stage where you cannot even trust these numbers anymore - whether local or state data?
hedora 6y ago
Extrapolate the rate of infection in the US (<100K) to get to herd immunity (0.6 * 328M ~= 200M). It will take ~ 2000 days at the current pace. New strains of the coronavirus come out once a year, so we should expect COVID-19[a-e] to arrive before we hit herd immunity on COVID-19. Hopefully they won’t be as bad as the current strain, but history says they’ll be more transmissible and/or more deadly. Also, it sounds like there are three distinct strains of COVID-19 already (Asian, European, and now one out of Texas), so my estimate of 5 strains in 5 years is probably wildly optimistic.
- WalterBright 6y ago
  > Extrapolate the rate of infection in the US (<100K) to get to herd immunity (0.6 * 328M ~= 200M). It will take ~ 2000 days at the current pace. That math assumes a linear infection rate. It's exponential. I wouldn't be surprised if we reached herd immunity about the time the vaccine becomes available.
  - ekianjo 6y ago
    Where do you see exponential infection rates at the current point in time?
    - vladTheInhaler 6y ago
      Here, for instance: https://www.unacast.com/covid19/social-distancing-scoreboard?view=state&fips=12 https://www.unacast.com/covid19/social-distancing-scoreboard...
    - robjan 6y ago
      https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ Still looks exponential to me
      - perl4ever 6y ago
        When I look at the dual graphs of infections and deaths, I think of how people say the death rate isn't rising, but wonder if it's that simple. I wonder if it is a temporary effect, where at first the decreasing age of new cases compensates for the increasing number of cases, but in a week or two, the latter will overcome the former. Kind of like how the decreasing cases in NY and western Europe countered the increasing cases in other places for a time, but it was temporary.

Not sure why so many think this way. In worst case scenario- we are never able to create a vaccine. So you expect the world to stay in lockdown mode for eternity?

baddox 6y ago

It's easy to be post-lockdown but not post-pandemic. Many places in the United States have been doing this for weeks now, and we're seeing how that's going.

harpratap 6y ago
> It's easy to be post-lockdown but not post-pandemic What's the difference?
- nthj 6y ago
  A lockdown is a a government-issued stay-at-home order. The presence of such an order should be, but isn't necessarily, aligned with the presence of a prevalent disease.
  - harpratap 6y ago
    Not asking for a literal definition of those words. I'm asking what's the difference in living in "post-lockdown" world vs "post-pandemic" world. Personally I think masks will become more prevalent in the west, like it is already in the east. And more remote jobs. In the grand scheme of things, these two changes seem minor to me. So what is it that I'm missing here? What grand changes in the way we live are we expecting in "post-pandemic" world?
    - perl4ever 6y ago
      I think eliminating indoor activities that involve being around a lot of other people in a confined space would be a profound change to society. Some bar owners seem very upset, to the point where they are equating closing bars with denying their right to exist and make a living and suing the government.
- shard 6y ago
  Here are 3 that popped into my mind after thinking about it for a minute. Maybe you can come up with others. If social distancing remains in effect, post-pandemic world would have much lower density in offices/restaurants/other large gathering locations with seating, increasing real estate costs, which will be passed onto the consumer. If social distancing is required on transportation as well, this would dramatically increase air travel costs. Not only would this require heavy rethinking in any locale which relies on tourism, but also for any conferences/conventions which have a large international attendee component, perhaps requiring a reduction in scope, or being cancelled completely as the economics no longer makes sense. In-patient hospital costs will also rise as patients can no longer be placed close to each other. Number of tele-medicine providers will rise, and how this will affect the quality of care will have to be seen.
  - harpratap 6y ago
    This is all based on the assumption that the current medical tech will stay as it is. But in reality what we are seeing is much faster tests (we have already gone done from few days to get back results to couple of hours now) and much better medical care once you are infected. Which means it will become a lot easier to separate the infected from the rest of the population, rendering the healthy population to work and move freely like they used to. You can do a quick test before boarding an international flight and permitted to enter the country only if you're healthy. Contact tracing apps can easily show Green-Red passes to prove whether you can enter any restaurant, shop, hospital, etc.
    - shard 6y ago
      That's a good point. As testing technology advances, many of these will be mitigated. Although until the tests get to the point where they can give results within minutes, like the flu tests have progressed to, it will not be a complete mitigation. Another issue is cost, as once testing becomes common place, I would expect the fees to be passed onto the consumer. Also, people may not want to put up with constant testing, e.g. once every 2 weeks, unless it's a condition for employment, which might be the case for any job which requires high contact with the population.
    - 6y ago
robohoe 6y ago
Certain states are doing well post-lockdown. Illinois only report 614 new cases of COVID-19 and six deaths today (lowest numbers since March).
- joering2 6y ago
  Aren’t we at the stage where you cannot even trust these numbers anymore - whether local or state data?

hedora 6y ago

Extrapolate the rate of infection in the US (<100K) to get to herd immunity (0.6 * 328M ~= 200M). It will take ~ 2000 days at the current pace. New strains of the coronavirus come out once a year, so we should expect COVID-19[a-e] to arrive before we hit herd immunity on COVID-19. Hopefully they won’t be as bad as the current strain, but history says they’ll be more transmissible and/or more deadly. Also, it sounds like there are three distinct strains of COVID-19 already (Asian, European, and now one out of Texas), so my estimate of 5 strains in 5 years is probably wildly optimistic.

WalterBright 6y ago
> Extrapolate the rate of infection in the US (<100K) to get to herd immunity (0.6 * 328M ~= 200M). It will take ~ 2000 days at the current pace. That math assumes a linear infection rate. It's exponential. I wouldn't be surprised if we reached herd immunity about the time the vaccine becomes available.
- ekianjo 6y ago
  Where do you see exponential infection rates at the current point in time?
  - vladTheInhaler 6y ago
    Here, for instance: https://www.unacast.com/covid19/social-distancing-scoreboard?view=state&fips=12 https://www.unacast.com/covid19/social-distancing-scoreboard...
  - robjan 6y ago
    https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ Still looks exponential to me
    - perl4ever 6y ago
      When I look at the dual graphs of infections and deaths, I think of how people say the death rate isn't rising, but wonder if it's that simple. I wonder if it is a temporary effect, where at first the decreasing age of new cases compensates for the increasing number of cases, but in a week or two, the latter will overcome the former. Kind of like how the decreasing cases in NY and western Europe countered the increasing cases in other places for a time, but it was temporary.