Ask HN: Is UK government insane or genius?

Post by bcrosby95 » Sun, Mar 15, 2020, 3:39 AM UTC

necovek wrote: post #454

ajross wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not "nonsense". It's real. It works for almost every other virus out there (even colds and flu, even though it's imperfect: new seasonal cold and flu strains don't become pandemics, because many people have some immunity from previous infections). If you let a large enough fraction of the UK contract and recover from COVID-19, we have every reason to suspect that the society will develop good enough herd immunit…

3. the immunity gained through an infection holds for a long enough time (how long would need to be checked with the infection rate), which we do not know yet Additionally, we know nothing of the long term effects even for the "young and healthy". Mortality rates for people 10-39 is 0.2%, 40-49 it's at 0.4%, 50-59 1.3%, 60-69 at 3.6%. Serious conditions develop in a bigger proportion of cases, so you are looking at 4…

Post by svara » Sun, Mar 15, 2020, 3:48 AM UTC

Post by TheCondor » Sun, Mar 15, 2020, 3:53 AM UTC

ajross wrote: post #432

rumanator wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No no, I understand that. But the thinking is, and it seems to be backed by data, that the health system will be able to cope with a full-population maximal pandemic, as long as it is limited to the much less vulnerable segments of the population. It really doesn't seem that you're getting it, because the whole point of this exercise is that it's quite patently obvious that no health care service in the world is ab…

> the expected incidence of cases that require medical care. Among the general population! Among people under 50, the best data we have is that the fraction needing ICU care is something like 0.2% (I think, I'd have to look it up again). The intent is to quarantine the at-risk and let it propagate in the "safe". I genuinely think it's you who's failed to understand the plan. You're arguing against something that is n…

Post by knzhou » Sun, Mar 15, 2020, 3:56 AM UTC

joe463369 wrote: post #418

knzhou wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the models the government's epidemiologists are using explicitly don't account for all possible actions. Back when this was taking off in China, a bunch of epidemiologists came out and said it was completely uncontrollable there. They were wrong, because they hadn't accounted for the extreme actions the Chinese government was willing to take; it was not even a possibility in the models. The same story repeate…

These may be legitimate criticisms of the UK government's epidemiologists - I'm not in a position to judge - but I'm not sure it explains why we should be listening to Tomas Pueyo on the matter.

Post by endorphone » Sun, Mar 15, 2020, 4:01 AM UTC

OJFord wrote: post #388

foobarbazetc wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s already too late. They’re on the Italy path. This “herd immunity” thing is nonsense. So much so that doctors and scientists are warning against it: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/14/coronavirus-nh...

Some are against it, others (such as presumably a majority of those advising the government) are for it. That's just good debate. > It’s already too late. They’re on the Italy path. Well, that's pretty much the point of the policy. 'Already screwed this year, let's try to cope, and be less screwed next year'. I was very critical at first, but I'm more interested/satisfied with the response now, it does seem to be wel…