3 ms·

> People not being selfish idiots would help one hell of a lot to speed the process and lower risks In my opinion, not quite. What it highlights is that non-ph

> People not being selfish idiots would help one hell of a lot to speed the process and lower risks In my opinion, not quite. What it highlights is that non-pharmaceutical interventions like quarantines and lockdowns are at best tools (very blunt tools) to slow down the virus. But you can't win against it with them alone. In this case, negligence, but you can imagine that errors can and will be made simply because we aren't perfect. And the spread will start again. It is a completely unsustainable strategy on the long run, and that's why countries (at least the ones which can afford that) should look more into pharmaceutical development and therapeutic options.

dredmorbius 6y ago
To quote six-months-ago-me, yes, curtailing spread through quarantine and hygiene is our principle tool, "for the duration of the epidemic, or until such time as any control is utterly futile" and recognises "Epidemiological response is about reducing vectors, contacts, reservoirs, and susceptibility, as well as second-order risks. Limiting movement, enhanced disease monitoring, contacts-tracing, quarantine, free treatment, mandatory vaccination (if available), financial aid and intervention to individuals, businesses, and the financial sector (in that order)". https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22528060 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22528060 It's possible for diseases to drop below the noise floor or sustaining transmissiion (plague, hantavirus), or for mutual evolution to reduce severity (rhinoviruses, influenza). Vaccines will likely be the long-term resolution, but this likely remains 2+ years off by optimistic estimates (WHO, Bill Gates). I consider a fair probability that an eendemic state will be the new normal.
- lbeltrame 6y ago
  This response is not sustainable when applied to entire populations for extended periods of time. Not only for the economy, but also for the mental well being of people: you can't build a society without contact (if you think this is too much, I've seen already people distancing from the elderly that might require aid for getting into a bus, for example, as if they were plagued). Secondly, vaccines work, but people forget pharmacological treatments, which can make a terrible disease manageable. As someone with a background in pharmacology, it baffles me when these options are never considered (like a post, probably trolling, which I saw on HN once, "The drugs don't work. Enjoy your 24 months quarantine"). Secondly, the "2+ years off" depends on the estimates. These are estimates made with previous experience, where one could afford waiting, if need be. This is not the case. "We can't wait 18-24 months", said at one point CanSino's CEO. I agree with him. Drugs or vaccines should, if the tests allow it (and despite the popular thinking, the current vaccines aren't rushed, the speed is mainly done because a lot of money has been poured into recruitment and monitoring) make sure that the situation is it at least lessened before that. Because if not, people will start blatantly ignoring any recommendations from authorities (and that would also mean governments becoming even more heavy-handed than today, which is already worrying).

dredmorbius 6y ago

To quote six-months-ago-me, yes, curtailing spread through quarantine and hygiene is our principle tool, "for the duration of the epidemic, or until such time as any control is utterly futile" and recognises "Epidemiological response is about reducing vectors, contacts, reservoirs, and susceptibility, as well as second-order risks. Limiting movement, enhanced disease monitoring, contacts-tracing, quarantine, free treatment, mandatory vaccination (if available), financial aid and intervention to individuals, businesses, and the financial sector (in that order)". https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22528060 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22528060 It's possible for diseases to drop below the noise floor or sustaining transmissiion (plague, hantavirus), or for mutual evolution to reduce severity (rhinoviruses, influenza). Vaccines will likely be the long-term resolution, but this likely remains 2+ years off by optimistic estimates (WHO, Bill Gates). I consider a fair probability that an eendemic state will be the new normal.

lbeltrame 6y ago
This response is not sustainable when applied to entire populations for extended periods of time. Not only for the economy, but also for the mental well being of people: you can't build a society without contact (if you think this is too much, I've seen already people distancing from the elderly that might require aid for getting into a bus, for example, as if they were plagued). Secondly, vaccines work, but people forget pharmacological treatments, which can make a terrible disease manageable. As someone with a background in pharmacology, it baffles me when these options are never considered (like a post, probably trolling, which I saw on HN once, "The drugs don't work. Enjoy your 24 months quarantine"). Secondly, the "2+ years off" depends on the estimates. These are estimates made with previous experience, where one could afford waiting, if need be. This is not the case. "We can't wait 18-24 months", said at one point CanSino's CEO. I agree with him. Drugs or vaccines should, if the tests allow it (and despite the popular thinking, the current vaccines aren't rushed, the speed is mainly done because a lot of money has been poured into recruitment and monitoring) make sure that the situation is it at least lessened before that. Because if not, people will start blatantly ignoring any recommendations from authorities (and that would also mean governments becoming even more heavy-handed than today, which is already worrying).