New research shows social distancing a must to beat Covid-19 • Hacker News Board

Re: New research shows social distancing a must to beat Covid-19

#31

Post by epmaybe » Thu, Mar 19, 2020, 3:45 PM UTC

tejohnso wrote: post #26

sojournerc wrote: post #4

> For every confirmed case of COVID-19, there are likely another five to 10 people with undetected infections. I wish this was reflected more in the numbers being presented by various authorities. There is just too much confidence that confirmed cases are representative of the spread of the virus. This unknown denominator can change mortality rate, and severe case rate by orders of magnitude. Because of the dearth of…

> By the time I am able to get tested it seems likely that I won't be shedding the virus any longer, and will test negative. Shouldn't the test detect antibodies that your immune system has developed?

Yes, but I don't think the PCR test is testing for that, currently. It's looking for pieces of viral RNA that are present in your blood. Antibody serology tests aren't readily available anywhere yet. In fact, the CDC is still developing theirs.

Re: New research shows social distancing a must to beat Covid-19

#32

Post by dominotw » Thu, Mar 19, 2020, 3:45 PM UTC

psychlops wrote: post #25

Given the ongoing statistics coming out of South Korea (which I'd suggest are the most accurate) where only one person under 50 has died. It seems that these safeguards would be best spent around those aged 60+ and perhaps those 50+ with other health issues. Those who are younger seem to be mildly affected for the most part and could go on with their lives as long as they didn't interact with the older population.

> as long as they didn't interact with the older population.

what about virus hanging on to surfaces for like 3 days

Re: New research shows social distancing a must to beat Covid-19

#33

Post by gpanders » Thu, Mar 19, 2020, 3:45 PM UTC

anon102010 wrote: post #8

Fascinating that they recommend you take OFF masks while on things like crowded BART trains and airports (I had lots leftover from forest fires) if you are "healthy", even though that might mean you are asymptomatic, or not yet diagnosed etc. Despite claims masks (with good adherence to wearing) are highly effective - primarily by reducing hand to mouth/nose contact, secondarily as a direct barrier. And surgical mask…

My understanding is that the urging to not wear masks when healthy is solely due to preserving masks for people who actually need them (sick people and doctors) given a limited supply, not because they're ineffective when healthy.

It's just a form of triage.

Re: New research shows social distancing a must to beat Covid-19

#34

Post by ncallaway » Thu, Mar 19, 2020, 3:46 PM UTC

tejohnso wrote: post #26

sojournerc wrote: post #4

> For every confirmed case of COVID-19, there are likely another five to 10 people with undetected infections. I wish this was reflected more in the numbers being presented by various authorities. There is just too much confidence that confirmed cases are representative of the spread of the virus. This unknown denominator can change mortality rate, and severe case rate by orders of magnitude. Because of the dearth of…

> By the time I am able to get tested it seems likely that I won't be shedding the virus any longer, and will test negative. Shouldn't the test detect antibodies that your immune system has developed?

There are different kinds of testing.

The current testing that's reported in the media is an antigen tests, that directly tests for the presence of the virus. Once your viral load comes down, you will test negative for the virus. Hence the reason people are declared recovered after having two negative tests in a row.

A test for the presence of antibodies is a serology test. The last time I looked into it (~one week ago), serology tests were under active development, but had not been deployed anywhere in a widespread way.

So, right now the testing will only tell you if you currently have the virus. Coming relatively soon are tests that will tell you if you previously had the virus.

Re: New research shows social distancing a must to beat Covid-19

#35

Post by tomerico » Thu, Mar 19, 2020, 3:47 PM UTC

psychlops wrote: post #25

Given the ongoing statistics coming out of South Korea (which I'd suggest are the most accurate) where only one person under 50 has died. It seems that these safeguards would be best spent around those aged 60+ and perhaps those 50+ with other health issues. Those who are younger seem to be mildly affected for the most part and could go on with their lives as long as they didn't interact with the older population.

That was the UK proposal which the public pressured against.

Re: New research shows social distancing a must to beat Covid-19

#36

Post by SketchySeaBeast » Thu, Mar 19, 2020, 3:47 PM UTC

psychlops wrote: post #25

Given the ongoing statistics coming out of South Korea (which I'd suggest are the most accurate) where only one person under 50 has died. It seems that these safeguards would be best spent around those aged 60+ and perhaps those 50+ with other health issues. Those who are younger seem to be mildly affected for the most part and could go on with their lives as long as they didn't interact with the older population.

Deaths are all fine and good, but do you know statistics on hospitalizations for the under 50 crowd? Those are the resources that are important - even if the under 50 doesn't die from it but requires hospitalization that's both a resource that can't be used by the above 50's, as well as a possible death if there isn't a bed for them.

Re: New research shows social distancing a must to beat Covid-19

#37

Post by scott_s » Thu, Mar 19, 2020, 3:47 PM UTC

sojournerc wrote: post #28

scott_s wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A comment by Bradley Kuszmaul on that blog post gives a good reason why the scenario presented is not likely: > Given the amount of testing being done in South Korea, we can rule out that there are a lot more people currently infected than we know about. And if there were a lot more people recovered than we know about, we would have seen deaths earlier in South Korea, since South Korea started their testing earlier.…

If the people who recover after mild/minimal symptoms do so within <5days (hypothetically), but people who have severe cases take 10 days to get severe, wouldn't that account for "would have seen deaths earlier in South Korea"?

Yes, that would. But what evidence do we have for that? I believe you're engaging in special pleading: appealing to an exception because it fits your conclusion.

Re: New research shows social distancing a must to beat Covid-19

#38

Post by microdrum » Thu, Mar 19, 2020, 3:47 PM UTC

SubiculumCode wrote: post #20

I really wish we had widespread testing, or even a test to see if you had COVID-19 in the past. Before we had all been so focused on this thing, my child's friend came back from China in December, and she had a upper respiratory illness with a fever. Then my whole family and I suffered under a low-grade fever and upper respiratory illness for a week or so in early January. I have no idea if it was COVID-19, but it is…

That's fear talking. Why would you want to be tested? What would you do differently? You had a virus, now you aren't sick any longer. You aren't making other people sick, either.

Re: New research shows social distancing a must to beat Covid-19

#39

Post by thu2111 » Thu, Mar 19, 2020, 3:49 PM UTC

tejohnso wrote: post #26

sojournerc wrote: post #4

> For every confirmed case of COVID-19, there are likely another five to 10 people with undetected infections. I wish this was reflected more in the numbers being presented by various authorities. There is just too much confidence that confirmed cases are representative of the spread of the virus. This unknown denominator can change mortality rate, and severe case rate by orders of magnitude. Because of the dearth of…

> By the time I am able to get tested it seems likely that I won't be shedding the virus any longer, and will test negative. Shouldn't the test detect antibodies that your immune system has developed?

That sort of test is in development but isn't reliable enough for use yet. The tests currently in use detect virus DNA, not antibodies.

Re: New research shows social distancing a must to beat Covid-19

#40

Post by Thriptic » Thu, Mar 19, 2020, 3:49 PM UTC

PappaPatat wrote: post #14

chrisa wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the doctors on one of the press conferences (sorry, can't remember which one), said that she would prefer the term "physical distancing" as well for the same reason. She said that "social distancing" is a medical technical term that doesn't translate super well to the public.

> She said that "social distancing" is a medical technical term that doesn't translate super well to the public. Which is 100% the opposite of what I in my daily life observe: everyone, young & old, private & work, calls it social distancing. It addresses the issue better too, then the "proposed" physical distancing. When you pass people physically the (need and) possibility to keep that 2 meters is often impossible…

Yeah but that's the point. The use of this term makes people think that this is simply about socializing when it is not. The fact that it's hard to stay 6 feet away from someone else in a city while outside is why people should stop going outside unless they absolutely have to. It's not enough to simply stop hanging out with people, and this idea can't be communicated well with this term. Many people I see outside make no attempt at distancing themselves from strangers they are passing or while shopping.