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

A Third Solution

paulbuchheit.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 535 posts

Re: A Third Solution

#141

Post by chatmasta »

notatoad wrote: post #137
chatmasta wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now imagine going out shopping, you’re stopped at the door, and you test positive. What happens then? The government puts you in a car and sends you... back to your apartment? Sounds like a dystopian nightmare, to be honest.

we're in the middle of a pandemic. at some point you've got to accept that dystopia is here, and the dystopian things that are happening are realistic ways of dealing with the situtuation. you can't reject solutions because they sound dystopian unless you've got better, non-dystopian solutions. and everybody has to stay in their homes at all times and all non-essential services are shut down is not a less dystopian s…

Fair enough. But I hope that line of reasoning has limits. After all, it would be safer to send everyone by truck to a quarantine camp instead of back to their apartment where they might infect their neighbors in the lobby, wouldn’t it?

Re: A Third Solution

#143

Post by pb »

adpirz wrote: post #138
pb wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The saliva stays inside the tube for that very reason. The test specifically identifies the virus, not the antibodies, again for the reason you identify. Currently most public buildings are closed, so adding ten minutes is a big improvement relative to that. Also, it probably took them more than ten minutes to drive to work, so I don't think it's completely implausible.

Assuming everything goes to plan, how will these be staffed and manufactured at scale?

It's a fully automated solution, like an airport kiosk or a subway turnstile. Maybe I need to make that more clear?

Re: A Third Solution

#144

Post by saeranv »

scythe wrote: post #92
saeranv wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Curious to know how you are getting power of 2 exactly. Are you just saying it's some sort of power law growth and approximately 2, or is there an actual way of deriving it?

If we assume (key) that the probability of becoming infected is directly proportional to the number of people you interact with, and consider that the probability of spreading infection given that you are infected is obviously directly proportional to the number of people you interact with, the product gives a quadratic function: [probability of becoming infected and spreading] = [probability of becoming infected] *…

Okay so something like:

probability of spreading = a * n probability of infected = b * n

where: a,b = some blackbox function for spreading/infection ratio? n = number of people you meet

Assuming both are independent events we get:

p = a * b * n^2

I can see how we get n^2 with that. The way I'm using a, and b seems clumsy though, is there a better way?

Re: A Third Solution

#145

Post by gremlinsinc »

sandworm101 wrote: post #102
jawns wrote: post #11

> If we were able to identify and quarantine everyone who is contagious, including those who are asymptomatic, then we could let everyone else out of lockdown and resume ordinary social and economic activity. > Even with imperfect screening, if we are able to prevent 90% of disease transmission, then the virus’s reproductive number, or R0, will drop below one and the pandemic will quickly fade. There is no risk of re…

"Test and release" only works in science fiction. In the real world there is no absolute test that would enable practical test/catch-and-release processing of infected persons. From an epidemiological perspective, when applied to an entire population even tiny false negative rates will let countless infections slip through. False positive rates will see some people doomed to perpetual lockdown as, for whatever reason…

Can you be sure it's not an existential threat?

Can you guarantee that a healthy person who gets this 3 times doesn't have a 100% fatality rate (i.e. it gets worse each time?)

Can you guarantee asymptomatic people don't become sterile? (Not saying they do, but if they did this would be an existential crisis and lead to our extinction after a generation).

Can you guarantee asymptomatic people still won't have lung damage permanently? (some asymptomatics athletic types have shown severe decline in lung abilities following covid19).

SARs was bad, but was wiped out so it's moot, AIDS is easier to avoid -don't have sex. ebola I think isn't as viral, and has been mostly contained, iirc they may have a vaccine launched or soon will and better treatments -- it's never gone full global like this.

Covid-19's problem is it's severe viralness and r0. It spreads and keeps on spreading, and there's a ton we don't know about how bad having had it will be to even those with minor cases. until we know for sure on all these factors, the more we can quell it the better.

Re: A Third Solution

#146

Post by danieltillett »

This is a solution that could work provided we have a rapid on the spot test. David States has recently proposed exactly such a test and apparently his company is woking on developing it [1].

The major problem with all self-testing and isolation strategies is getting population buy in and what to do about poor countries.

It is difficult to get population buy in if the economic cost of being positive is high (which it would be for many). If people have to isolate for weeks then it will be difficult to get the working poor to test and/or quarantine themselves if positive. This virus is so infectious that even a small percentage of people not voluntarily participating is a problem. It might be possible to overcome this issue via some rewards (say a cash payment), but this would need to be carefully structured to not encourage people to infect themselves and/or fraud.

A daily test is unlikely to be viable for most poor countries in the world. I am not sure how we would overcome this problem outside of a cheap vaccine.

1. https://twitter.com/statesdj/status/1253794887062958081

Re: A Third Solution

#147

Post by philwelch »

clairity wrote: post #82
downerending wrote: post #59

This is a pleasant thought, but we can't even get most people to obey speed limits most days, even though it's far easier and we know it would save large numbers of lives.

strictly speaking, speed in and of itself isn’t the primary problem, it’s distracted driving in its many forms. speed only makes the severity of those accidents greater.

That doesn’t really make sense. If you’re driving too fast, even with perfect focus you could hit someone or something before your normal reaction time could recognize and avoid it.

Re: A Third Solution

#148

Post by condiment »

slg wrote: post #93
pb wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why I think testing at the door is the more straightforward way to start. We can reopen factories, office buildings, even shopping malls, but no one gets in without passing the screen.

This test takes 10 minutes. That is probably still too long to implement at the doors for most places. It will end up creating a bottleneck of people waiting to enter the building and another avenue to spread the virus. Making the inside of the mall safe from the virus isn't going to matter if everyone is exposed to the virus while waiting in the 30 minute line to get into the mall.

The article is suggesting daily testing and used "testing at the door" as an example.

Wouldn't it stand to reason that you could be tested once per day, in the parking lot to a mall or some other shopping establishment, and thereafter _verify_ that you had been tested that day for the remainder of your commercial transactions?

Thinking in those terms, 10 minutes per day is not so great of an imposition. We could formalize it and create drive-through test centers where you drive up, spit into the tube, have a bar code on your phone scanned, and drive off. On your way to the mall you get a text message with your results. Everywhere else you visit that day scans your phone upon entry and confirms that you've been tested.

Re: A Third Solution

#149

Post by arcticbull »

jhayward wrote: post #136
arcticbull wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't really change anything. To the extent the vulnerable are holed up inside, everyone else is welcome to get it, display mild flu-like symptoms, and develop herd immunity.

You repeat the fantasy that the more vulnerable population is separable from the less vulnerable. As well you omit the size of the vulnerable - everyone who is obese, diabetic, hypertensive, or cardiovascular diseased, or immunocompromised. The first is just a fantasy - no one has an actionable plan to do it. The second proves the size of the problem, which exacerbates the difficulty.

Again, as always, Sweden seems to be doing it just fine.

Re: A Third Solution

#150

Post by danieltillett »

arcticbull wrote: post #134

> This could be a reason why so many otherwise young and healthy doctors and nurses have been killed by this virus. This isn't well supported by data. In the sense that (a) young people just aren't particularly affected any more so than with the flu (old and sick people of course are much worse off) and (b) in Italy's data, no health professionals under the age of 49 died. There have been some deaths outside Italy bu…

While the young might rarely die, this illness is not something you want even if young. It can be pretty brutal and there is some evidence that it causes damage to lung even in the absence of symptoms.
Post reply on HN