Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwaway936482 | Hacker News Reader

This strategy is not insane only if there is also a concerted effort to protect those who are vulnerable while the virus spreads. The problem is there isn't one. At all. None. Zip. Zero. Some care homes are, off their own back, banning visitors but apart from that the old and the vulnerable are not being asked to self isolate or engage in social distancing, only those who have symptoms themselves are being told to self isolate, and not members of their households. Social clubs, churches, pubs, cafes, day centres, restaurants etc. where a lot of older people congregate are all still open. None essential home visits have not been curtailed and people are not being advised to socially distance themselves from the vulnerable.

View on HN

According to Peston: "elderly to be quarantined at home or in care homes for four months, in "wartime-style" mobilisation to combat Coronavirus."

https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1238917834111156231

How do you quarantine them if they need support from nurses and caregivers who aren't quarantined?

See "COVID-19: residential care, supported living and home care guidance"[0].

[0] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-resident...

Unless the old people homes have live-in staff and are careful with deliveries, then I don't see the difference between a visitor and a staff member. Scary.

^^^ 2000% this, a large proportion can't change their ways, is not paying attention or simply doesn't care. It's shocking to still tonight walk past a packed pub on a Saturday night

Personally, I'm 30, have no contact with folks over 65, have no co-morbid conditions and so I have no reason to keep away from folks. I'm at zero risk. In fact if I get it now and develop an immunity, all the better. I have to assume the same is true of the folks at the pub -- otherwise it's them who are being irresponsible, not me.

Defense in depth is a thing. Your strategy is only as strong as the weakest link. Only one person between you and someone vulnerable.

Right, but as I personally am not exposing myself to anyone over the age of 31, and I am not sick, I don't see the harm, or myself as contributing.

But if you are in contact with someone under 31 who has no choice but to be in contact with someone over 31... I guess the question you have to consider is how much to blame is each individual who chooses to ignore recommended procedures yet passes the virus on to someone who ends up dying.

Then why are they out? They have no excuse. My parents are older and so I'm not going to visit them, and instead call regularly. That's unfortunate but that's the safest thing to do.

By staying out you are contributing to the spread of a virus that society at large is ill-prepared for. You have no excuse either. This shouldn't be hard for a grown adult to understand.

If your behaviour is only responsible on the assumption that everyone else you meet is behaving responsibly, then your behaviour is irresponsible.

Scenario: Your parents get it from somebody who is acting irresponsibility, who in turn got it (in)directly from you.

Does it really matter that it's "somebody else's fault"?

This is very wrong. While you yourself may not have contact with old people, you can still act as a vector and spread it to someone who does.

Indeed, which is why it's on them not to go out. So long as nobody who has contact with old folks goes out, we're basically doing the UK plan ad-hoc. The rule shouldn't be "nobody go out" the rule should be "nobody with exposure to the vulnerable should go out" -- and if they do, they're being totally irresponsible.

I, however, am not, and I'm supporting the local economy.

Is the pub the only place where you get in contact with other people?

I mean, I'm not allowed into the office and I get my groceries delivered from a CSA box ^_^

This point of view strikes me as incredibly selfish. Some people who have exposure to vulnerable people might need to go out (to get groceries, medication, etc.) and you could still act as a vector to infect them. Surely your social life will survive two weekends away from the pub.

Old people need groceries and medicine, which in many cases they will have to go out for. (Not everyone has delivery available, or can afford delivery). On those trips they are likely to encounter younger people, including the workers at the grocery stores and pharmacies.

Young people also need groceries and medicine, and through the grocery store and pharmacy they are then one step from people who are one step from older people.

It only takes a handful of steps for your "nobody with exposure to the vulnerable" to be close to an empty set.

I’ve seen this attitude quite a lot among younger people lately, it’s just super irresponsible and arrogant. In a situation like this, the responsibility must be shared, no one should consider themselves free from the responsibilities of stopping the spread this virus.

> In a situation like this, the responsibility must be shared

Why not in other situations though? The elites avoid taxes, Boomers have houses, banks are pumping up the asset bubble, while young people have student debt, can't buy a place to live (or even a car), have no assets and, if they're lucky and productive and high-earners, they "enjoy" 20% higher tax rate than owners of capital... Why exactly should anyone now act in a way that is detrimental to themselves, to save some other predators?

You might find T.M. Scanlon's What We Owe to Each Other interesting.[1]

[1] https://www.scribd.com/document/127602229/Scanlon-1998-What-...

I hate the fact that I kinda see your point.

Again, if you don't come into contact with the vulnerable (or anyone else who does) then you aren't putting anyone at risk and you are developing herd immunity which will in time likely end the virus.

The problem is that while you may not deal with old people, the same is not true of all of the people that you deal with.

Remember that it takes an average of no more than 6 steps in your social network to get from any person in the USA to any other person in the USA.

Mr. arcticbull has replied elsewhere that then it's the responsibility of that person (whom he might deal with, and would deal with the vulnerable as well) to quarantine themselves.

To extrapolate, presumably he wouldn't feel any guilt if that vulnerable person died and he was a vector that got the virus to said person.

I wonder what a valid response to this logic is. Maybe: "not all people will be responsible, so it's your duty to be responsible". I guess he'd respond with, "But why should those people be free to enjoy themselves while I'm stuck at home?".

In any case, it's interesting how the sense of community has died.

I'm genuinely not sure where the balance here should be drawn. The UK is making the case that it's the best thing for the community for all the young folks to get the disease to protect the vulnerable so clearly it's not black and white.

While you probably don’t realize it, you have just underscored my point.

I think this as well. The only problem I learned about, is that there seems to be a chance of long-term respiratory damage (e.g. 20% lower lung capacity), which is as of now unlikely to be properly tracked / reported, but likely higher than the reported number of "critical" or "death" outcomes (which indeed are tiny in < 40s)

This is true of other some, but not all other coronaviridae so I suppose it's not a surprise but I also haven't heard any data on this.

You have a .2% mortality chance once you exhibit symptoms, right? That's much greater than no risk.

That 0.2% is in line with the flu, and also, generally is attributable to those with comorbid conditions, especially ones that compromised immunity. If you're young and healthy, it's not 0.2% -- it's much lower. If you're young and unhealthy it's not 0.2% -- it's much higher.

There's no such thing as no risk. I'm putting myself at risk of all sorts of things by leaving the house.

Your reasoning seems off. From what I can find, in your age group, the mortality rate for covid-19 after exhibiting symptoms is 0.2%. This is about equal to the rate for the overall flu mortality rate which includes those who have a higher risk.

Your dismissal of "everything puts you at risk" is common when we're young, but it is misplaced as well. I suspect you know and understand that a lot of background risk is actively reduced by the actions we take, personally and professionally (justice system, laws, streetlights, seat belts etc.) so while you may be speaking what you feel, if you know better you may want to reconsider stating it as though it was a fact.

Your figures are wrong by several orders of magnitude. In the 18-49 age group, the seasonal flu fatality rate is around 0.0018%.[1] 0.2% is already uncomfortable odds: 1 in 500. And that figure assumes proper hospital care as others have also replied. It's much higher if the healthcare system is flooded.

1. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2018-2019.html

(The mortality rate figures given are per 100,000 population, so 1.8 / 1000 yields the percentage for that age group.)

Aside from the fact that you may spend a week or more spreading virus all over the place and to potentially dozens or hundreds of other people with this approach, there is at least a 1 in 10 chance that, if infected, you will need hospitalization and serious care. You will contribute to overloading a medical system, without which even your mortality rate would be closer to 5% than the <0.1% you seem to assume. It is simply not the case that this has no effect on the non-elderly; severe pneumonia is a debilitating condition even for the young and fit. For a large fraction of everyone who gets it, this is WAY harsher than any flu you have experienced, and even many in your demographic will need extended hospitalization.

Indeed, "atypical pneumonia" is a killer, you're basically drowning in your own blood and fluids. This can happen to anyone.

> have no contact with folks over 65, have no co-morbid conditions and so I have no reason to keep away from folks. I'm at zero risk.

Until you spread it to someone _with_ contact with the over-65/those at risk.

Several did, and they either reduced the mortality rate or slowed the spread of infection.

Some made the changes during SARS, some did it now.

A large population CAN change it's ways.

I’m not shocked at all that Brit’s still want to get wasted at the weekend regardless of anything. Disclosure: expat Brit!

In any case, the health services are not, and will not be, in a position to handle 40 million cases this year.

The curve must be flattened over years.

Scientists have written that much in a letter to the government today.

> only those who have symptoms [...]

Where 'symptoms' includes 'a cough'; not just definitely-COVID-19 symptoms.

> [...] themselves are being told to self isolate, and not members of their households.

That's not true.

From the Guardian on Thurs, quoting Boris Johnson:

“At some point in the next few weeks we are likely to go further, and if someone in a household has those symptoms then we will be asking everyone in that household to stay at home. I want to signal now that this is coming down the track.”

— https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/12/uk-moves-to-de...

Which would suggest that's not the advice currently. Would be interested to see anything counter to that though if you've links.

> The move to launch “shielding” of the elderly and infirm and “whole family isolation” is an escalation since Thursday, when the government said that only individuals with a persistent dry cough or temperature should stay at home for seven days.

Paywall, sorry, but from:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/coronavirus-death-toll-le...

> the prime minister ordered the government to accelerate plans [...and] is expected to impose the new rules this week

It's not the current advice.

> That's not true.

How so? Everything I've seen from them, including the Gov't site only say to self-isolate. They said that in the near future they may tell households to isolate, but right now only the person with symptoms.

> "people with confirmed or possible coronavirus (COVID-19) infection"

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-stay-at-...

Isn't that how all the Native Americans died? The immigrants and imperialists weren't sick and their resistance to cause a herd immunity to the natives because the diseases were still ON THEM and it spread to the natives! This does not protect the vulnerable ones????

Reply on news.ycombinator.com