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

Deconfinement: The Price of Human Life

mondaynote.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 60 posts

Re: Deconfinement: The Price of Human Life

#11

Post by rhn_mk1 »

drapred7 wrote: post #8
Lazare wrote: post #2

Some good points, although I'd toss another thought into the mix. The confinements and shutdowns and shelter in place orders also cost lives. We know that recessions cost lives. One study (published in The Lancet, so worth taking a second look at) suggested 500k excess cancer deaths from the global financial crisis[1], and another study (published in the BMJ) suggested that excess suicides in 2009 alone across the US…

If the movement restrictions cost lives, why are total fatalities down? (even including SARS deaths)

Because total = increase - decrease.

If the decrease is bigger than the increase, you will see the total drop.

Re: Deconfinement: The Price of Human Life

#12

Post by drapred7 »

luckylion wrote: post #6
Normal_gaussian wrote: post #3

Something that seems not to be considered by many observers is that if a disease is not eliminated, it will continuously either claim lives or reduce efficiency (which claims lives).

Is there reasonable hope for a virus like this to be completely eliminated? I figure if it's in that sweet spot of contagiousness, incubation time and mortality, it's hard to eradicate completely. And unless it's eradicated completely, we'll absolutely have to live with reduced efficiency in hyper-alert testing of anyone with symptoms, unless we find that it ceases to be a serious problem once humans have had contact…

Bubonic plague, tuberculosis and polio still exist outside the West, but they don't cause much inefficiency here. I doubt doing some ongoing testing for SARS now that it's been mostly eliminated in Asia will permanently cripple Asia's economies. The inefficiencies of continued outbreaks on less well organized nations are harder to predict but possibly much larger.

Re: Deconfinement: The Price of Human Life

#13

Post by elcomet »

drapred7 wrote: post #8
Lazare wrote: post #2

Some good points, although I'd toss another thought into the mix. The confinements and shutdowns and shelter in place orders also cost lives. We know that recessions cost lives. One study (published in The Lancet, so worth taking a second look at) suggested 500k excess cancer deaths from the global financial crisis[1], and another study (published in the BMJ) suggested that excess suicides in 2009 alone across the US…

If the movement restrictions cost lives, why are total fatalities down? (even including SARS deaths)

Also, movement restrictions cause deaths in longer terms than the virus.

Re: Deconfinement: The Price of Human Life

#14

Post by drapred7 »

leereeves wrote: post #9
luckylion wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there reasonable hope for a virus like this to be completely eliminated? I figure if it's in that sweet spot of contagiousness, incubation time and mortality, it's hard to eradicate completely. And unless it's eradicated completely, we'll absolutely have to live with reduced efficiency in hyper-alert testing of anyone with symptoms, unless we find that it ceases to be a serious problem once humans have had contact…

It probably depends on how long acquired immunity lasts, which we don't know yet. People remain immune to some diseases, like measles, for a lifetime after surviving the disease or being vaccinated. Immunity to other diseases, like influenza, disappears quickly (even immunity to the same strain lasts less than a year).[1] If COVID-19 is in the latter category, it will be difficult to control and we'll probably have t…

That likely depends on how effective we are at eliminating it in the coming months. I doubt it will become endemic in Korea or Singapore.

I wonder if even influenza could be erraticated in the coming years with mass testing and contact tracing. The lockdowns ended flu season early this year.

Re: Deconfinement: The Price of Human Life

#15

Post by Animats »

The "Get and keep America open" plan is really a "keep dying" plan, but this is something few want to admit. Someone else pointed out how deceptive the "flattening the curve" charts were. Most showed a symmetrical rise and fall. In reality, that plan just keeps the hospitalization rate and death rate down to what the medical system can handle. Both stay high for many months until either saturation ("herd immunity") is approached, or there's a vaccine. The "flat" part is probably a year long, somewhere around the current death rate, which is in the 1000-2000 deaths per day range. (That may be underestimated. See this Financial Times article, which is looking at "excess mortality", or the change in deaths from all causes.)[1]

"Herd immunity" is a long way off.[2] That only happens when 70% or so of the population has had this virus. While there's not much data yet about how many people have cleared the virus and acquired antibodies, most figures are around 5% of the population, except a few cities, primarily New York, where it may be somewhere above 20%. So the dying is maybe 6-10% done, nationally.

The CDC is now avoiding death forecasts beyond mid-June.[3] Previous longer-term projections have been so far off as to be useless.[4]

Don't bunch up, and wear a real mask that protects you, not others.

[1] https://www.ft.com/content/6bd88b7d-3386-4543-b2e9-0d5c6fac8... [2] https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/no-place-on-earth-i... [3] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/forecas... [4] https://www.foxnews.com/politics/coronavirus-model-estimates...

Re: Deconfinement: The Price of Human Life

#16

Post by drapred7 »

thescriptkiddie wrote: post #10
ekianjo wrote: post #5

> In the end, these determinations all place an unspoken price on human life We are already doing this by letting people drive with personal vehicles every year even they cost dozens of thousands of lives. There is no zero risk, but we decide (we, as in, the society at large, not individuals) what level of harm is "acceptable".

The line between deciding that a particular level of harm is acceptable, and accepting it by default, is blurry. And yet allowing, through inaction, a human being to come to harm is not functionally or morally different than deliberately harming them. And so we wash our hands of responsibility by telling ourselves we didn't do anything. But who are we fooling?

If that definition were taken, and people were moral, you could infinitely blackmail moral people by threatening harm.

Re: Deconfinement: The Price of Human Life

#17

Post by lbeltrame »

leereeves wrote: post #9
luckylion wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there reasonable hope for a virus like this to be completely eliminated? I figure if it's in that sweet spot of contagiousness, incubation time and mortality, it's hard to eradicate completely. And unless it's eradicated completely, we'll absolutely have to live with reduced efficiency in hyper-alert testing of anyone with symptoms, unless we find that it ceases to be a serious problem once humans have had contact…

It probably depends on how long acquired immunity lasts, which we don't know yet. People remain immune to some diseases, like measles, for a lifetime after surviving the disease or being vaccinated. Immunity to other diseases, like influenza, disappears quickly (even immunity to the same strain lasts less than a year).[1] If COVID-19 is in the latter category, it will be difficult to control and we'll probably have t…

Let's not discount pharmacological options. HIV doesn't have a vaccine, yet it can be fought with a proper (admittedly very complex) drug regime.

The same can be probably done for SARS-CoV-2, although we'll have to wait for specific drugs to reach better efficiency.

And I add, we don't need to make this virus disappear (it would be better, but even with a very efficient vaccine it is unlikely). If we can prevent hospitalizations (and possibly deaths), we can likely live with it like we did with many other pathogens.

Re: Deconfinement: The Price of Human Life

#18

Post by manigandham »

drapred7 wrote: post #8
Lazare wrote: post #2

Some good points, although I'd toss another thought into the mix. The confinements and shutdowns and shelter in place orders also cost lives. We know that recessions cost lives. One study (published in The Lancet, so worth taking a second look at) suggested 500k excess cancer deaths from the global financial crisis[1], and another study (published in the BMJ) suggested that excess suicides in 2009 alone across the US…

If the movement restrictions cost lives, why are total fatalities down? (even including SARS deaths)

These deaths aren't as acute. Deaths from economic depression will take longer to manifest than a sudden illness.

Re: Deconfinement: The Price of Human Life

#19

Post by TJSomething »

drapred7 wrote: post #8
Lazare wrote: post #2

Some good points, although I'd toss another thought into the mix. The confinements and shutdowns and shelter in place orders also cost lives. We know that recessions cost lives. One study (published in The Lancet, so worth taking a second look at) suggested 500k excess cancer deaths from the global financial crisis[1], and another study (published in the BMJ) suggested that excess suicides in 2009 alone across the US…

If the movement restrictions cost lives, why are total fatalities down? (even including SARS deaths)

The primary risk factors of economic recessions take years. Most cancers take years to kill people. The effect of unemployment on suicide peaks at around 2.5 years of unemployment [0]. I think that we're going to have an economic downturn with repercussions that will last long after a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine exists. I also think the ends currently justify the means, but that's just a gut feeling I've got.

[0] Milner, Allison et al. “Long-term unemployment and suicide: a systematic review and meta-analysis.” PloS one vol. 8,1 (2013): e51333. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0051333

Re: Deconfinement: The Price of Human Life

#20

Post by leereeves »

drapred7 wrote: post #14
leereeves wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It probably depends on how long acquired immunity lasts, which we don't know yet. People remain immune to some diseases, like measles, for a lifetime after surviving the disease or being vaccinated. Immunity to other diseases, like influenza, disappears quickly (even immunity to the same strain lasts less than a year).[1] If COVID-19 is in the latter category, it will be difficult to control and we'll probably have t…

That likely depends on how effective we are at eliminating it in the coming months. I doubt it will become endemic in Korea or Singapore. I wonder if even influenza could be erraticated in the coming years with mass testing and contact tracing. The lockdowns ended flu season early this year.

We'd have to eliminate it worldwide, or it would travel from country to country like the flu does.

In particular, from Mexico. There's too much travel between the US and Mexico to prevent it from crossing the border, and there are 50,000 confirmed cases in Mexico already, with roughly 2000 more being found every day.

Post reply on HN