Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

directorsblog.nih.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 138 posts

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

#81

Post by dueh3brhdudu »

dboreham wrote: post #69
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…

Two things to know: 1. The current test is designed for the scenario that someone shows up to medical provider with symptoms. Test answers the question: are the symptoms caused by COVID-19?, quite reliably (negligible false positives, low false negatives). 2. The current test won't produce terribly useful data in someone without symptoms (either before, or after the illness). This is why for example certain well-know…

Number 2 is misleading, Trump got tested to quell opponents' fear mongering about his health. That doesn't make it more useful scientifically but no one thought it was happening for science anyway.

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

#82

Post by gdubs »

alexandercrohde wrote: post #67

I'm sorry but what does this title even mean? Define "beat Covid-19." Not to be a hardass, but I'd prefer real information not babyfood. Something akin to "Currently predicted US deaths without social distancing: X. With social distancing: Y. Potentially recurring each year"

Humans still have to read these things. Getting policy makers to pay attention is an actual problem, so using 'plain talk' can be effective.

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

#83

Post by PragmaticPulp »

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…

> I'm fairly certain I've just recovered from COVID-19 given my symptoms, but can't get tested here in Colorado.

I'm glad you're better. Please be careful going forward, though. You shouldn't assume you have an immunity unless you have a positive test result.

Even with the strict pre-test screening that focus strictly on high probability patients, some locations are reporting very high (90%) negative test results from assumed cases.

It's best to continue practicing safety cautions as if you did not have a COVID-19 infection

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

#84

Post by gdubs »

filleduchaos wrote: post #57
josephorjoe wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, for one thing, if people can be tested to confirm they had and recovered from the virus and therefore have some immunity to it, those people can more safely assist people who are currently ill and move about more freely in society (unless they are still at risk to transmit the virus to others, of course).

You cannot assume that recovering from the virus confers immunity, especially when "the virus" is already "two strains of virus" (and will almost definitely end up mutating more before this is over).

FWIW the 'two strains' theory was debunked.

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

#85

Post by abhorrence »

filleduchaos wrote: post #57
josephorjoe wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, for one thing, if people can be tested to confirm they had and recovered from the virus and therefore have some immunity to it, those people can more safely assist people who are currently ill and move about more freely in society (unless they are still at risk to transmit the virus to others, of course).

You cannot assume that recovering from the virus confers immunity, especially when "the virus" is already "two strains of virus" (and will almost definitely end up mutating more before this is over).

It certainly confers immunity for a short period of time. How long that immunity lasts for is unknown, but it’s not unreasonable to start with an assumption of “at least a few months”.

There’s also not strong evidence that there are two sufficiently different strains. Viruses experience small, mostly meaningless, mutations with great frequency. The research talking about S and L types are actually just an arbitrary categorization of many different mutations of the virus.

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

#86

Post by fspeech »

btilly wrote: post #78
fspeech wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The study is on the initial outbreak in Wuhan when testing was in short supply.

And has the testing story improved relative to the need? Also from the article and the same Science paper, For every confirmed case of COVID-19, there are likely another five to 10 people with undetected infections.

They were talking about abysmal testing rate:

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/03/13/scie...

”We estimate 86% of all infections were undocumented (95% CI: [82%–90%]) prior to 23 January 2020 travel restrictions.”

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

#87

Post by AntonStratiev »

Introducing social distancing for the entire population comes at huge economic and social cost.

It is more effective to follow these three simple measures:

1. Symptomatic cases stay at home for 7 days

2. All household members of symptomatic cases stay at home for 14 days

3. Social distancing for the over 70 population only

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/s...

Social distancing of the entire population also slows the acquisition of immunity with zero and low risk age groups, which drags the whole situation out months longer.

It might even be logical with the above 3 steps in place for zero/low risk group to deliberately seek out the virus. This grants immunity quicker, and if they become sick, they can receive treatment whilst hospitals are still underwhelmed.

Speaking personally I would happily accept a strain of the virus considered to be low risk, then go into 14 day quarantine, if it meant I could afterwards work and socialise without any lockdown or restriction.

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

#88

Post by 3JPLW »

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…

It seems like you're pushing back on the CFR, possibly driven by trying to pessimize the need for action.

In the small Italian city of Nembro in Bergamo, 0.6% of their entire population has died in the last 12 days. That's 70 people in a small town of 11,000 — typically there are fewer than 70 deaths every six months. Now we're certainly _overestimating_ the denominator and still getting a number that's larger than the flu. While the numerator is also an overestimate (because it includes deaths not related to COVID-19), their healthcare system is stretched beyond capacity due to the virus leading to difficulties treating all illnesses and traumas.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/coronavirus-obit...

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

#89

Post by SketchySeaBeast »

psychlops wrote: post #65
SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I use their daily updated website* for statistics which don't break down age/hospitalization. Deaths will come either by the coronavirus and/or by the poverty created by the extreme social measures suggested by the ongoing mania. I tend to believe the latter will kill more and be longer lasting. * https://www.cdc.go.kr/board/board.es?mid=a30402000000&bid=00...

A lot of people have responded here - the ICU rates seem very very high for even the young and healthy - which tells me people are going to die as the beds get swamped.

There's already a softening to people's needs in regards to healthcare and the economy - can you imagine the US seriously discussing any form of UBI 3 weeks ago?

While I understand it's going to be a tough hole to get out of, the economic levers seem like they'll be easier to adjust, and are adjustable on a longer timeline, than the acute condition of "not enough beds".

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

#90

Post by BiteCode_dev »

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…

People are mostly looking at the death count, which is still very low for a pandemic.

It's hard to convince people to sacrifice so much when they look outside their windows and see nothing special, plus read the news and find that some bomb/earth quake/accident somewhere killed more people in a day than the corona virus in a month.

Post reply on HN