4 ms·
From a sheer infection control standpoint it makes a sense to vaccinate hypermobile social superspreader nodes first. Anyone who comes into contact with lots of
by napier 6y ago
From a sheer infection control standpoint it makes a sense to vaccinate hypermobile social superspreader nodes first. Anyone who comes into contact with lots of people is going to be responsible for more onward infection chains than a reclusive grandma. The butterflies among the young are probably key drivers of spread. Take them out of the susceptibility picture and everyone benefits.
- maxerickson 6y agoYou just have to identify them. I also wonder if a social butterfly has a bigger contact network than the average church goer or retail employee.
- napier 6y agoSmartphone mobility and social graph data that’s already being collected and analyzed. Rather than just using existing tech to target ads and build surveillance capitalism profiles, it could be used in the public interest. On an opt in basis naturally; but as frictionlessly as possible via cookie tracker popups and updates to FAANG terms of service perhaps.
- willturman 6y ago"Based on tracking your GPS and behavior on Facebook, we need you to come in for an injection." Where do I sign up?!
- napier 6y agoStranger things have happened in 2020 than that! It’s a win-win. Superspreader nodes either get their vaccine or they become aware of how much they’re already tracked may begin to consider the nuances and implications.
- BurningFrog 6y agoThere is a considerable Moral Hazard element to this, but it would make sense to vaccinate the most irresponsible people first, since they're the ones spreading it most.
- levosmetalo 6y agoIt's not realy moral hazard, it's about what is the goal. If the goal is to slow down the pandemic, then the "irresponsible spreaders" should be vaccinated first. On the other side, if the goal is to punish "irresponsible spreaders", then they should be vaccinated last. But that also means that pandemics would not be slowed down, and the ones taking that decision will be responsible for further spreading.
- krona 6y agoHow do you know whether someone is being 'irresponsible' before they catch the virus? Do you follow them around, taking photographs? Imagine the social stigma, for starters. Do you live in the real world, or a computer game?
- BurningFrog 6y agoYou could go to karaoke bars, or other danger areas and hand out vaccination vouchers. Or you could go by demographics. The hardest hit groups in the worst spreading areas. Etc. You're right that it's not a trivial thing, but if you wanted to do it, reasonable approximations could be found.
- gens 6y agoIf you want to keep the amount of dead people to a minimum, then it makes sense to first vaccinate those who are most likely to die. HN-ians like to model stuff, and i get that. To do it properly we need to know how many "young"(active ppl) there are, how many old with lung problems, the rates of propagation in and between those, and probably other stuff. But the goal is to keep the deaths down, and my opinion is that by far the smartest way is to first vaccinate the vulnerable people and those who deal with them directly (nurses, etc.). There's also a lot of points about practicality. For example; If i get infected not much happens (i'd just have to isolate myself, even with heavier symptoms). But if my mother gets those severe symptoms she would need to go to the hospital, if she would live at all. Even if the math says it's better to vaccinate the young ones first, i'd still argue that it's overall safer to vaccinate the vulnerable ones first.