Ask HN: Isolation (from coronavirus) is only a temporary band-aid that will fail

IANAE, Some of the simulations featured on HN reaffirm the fact that the sweep through the population must happen, but the relative concentration of virus per individual can be minimized. This will help minimize deaths, because if any one immune system is overloaded it cannot cope. It is like a tsunami that everyone must ride, but the relative strength of that tsunami can be curbed by minimizing cross-contact that inadvertently increases virus concentrations per person.

That makes sense. But how long will it take? I've not seen discussions on the length of time we'll need to hunker down to get the benefit.

Great question, don't know, right now the most vital thing is that hospitals are not overloaded with dramatic influxes of care-seekers, so whatever helps stem that tide.

My concern is not overwhelming hospitals translates to 20 years of lockdown. It isn't feasible. But we might not figure it out until we've destroyed the economy. Then we end up with the same deaths from the virus we were trying to prevent, plus the suffering/deaths of a crippled nation/economy. This sucks.

Hospitals. If the hospitals get over run like in Italy, 1% goes to 2% or more. Remember roughly 10% of the population will need hospitalization and ~40% are 20-50. We're in very short supply of all kinds of vital hospital items.

That is true. But not overwhelming the hospitals means we spend 20-30 years in isolation. That's not realistic. The time element for our population size is the problem I can't find a way around.

> Ask HN: Isolation (from coronavirus) is only a temporary band-aid that will fail

This is not a question.

> (I wish the above wasn't true, but my wishes don't count for anything)

I grant your wish.

> Where is the hole in the above rationale?

The number of people an infected person infects is hopefully driven (far) below 1 through lock down.

If no vaccine will be available soon enough, the curve can be steepened again as far as people can be treated to achieve immunity more quickly.

It's a good time to be a maker of ventilators.

> The number of people an infected person infects is hopefully driven (far) below 1 through lock down.

That is only true for the period of time the lock down is in force. Once lock down ends we're back where we started. Lock down merely hits a pause button.

> as far as people can be treated to achieve immunity more quickly.

Do some calculations on how long that takes for 330 million people (or only 220 million people for herd immunity). Time is the problem.

> It's a good time to be a maker of ventilators.

Probably true.

edited> Isolation is only a temporary band-aid

Yep :(

> Getting 220 million people exposed, at a rate of 1 million per month [...] would take almost 20 years.

There are too many uncertain details, so it could be 10 or 30 or 5 o ... Also, there is hopefully some work to solve the bottlenecks (like ventilators, or soon the overworked nurses and doctors), so the number of ill people that don't overwhelm the health system can grow and reduce the duration of the problem.

> Finding, creating, distributing and vaccinating 220 million people would take a number of years?

Probably two years if someone promise to pay the bill. There are some prototypes and some optimistic estimations say 18 month. Don't expect to see the vaccine in less than a year, but hopefully it will be finished in two years.

> If we miss 1 person out of 330 million in the US, that 1 person will start the entire cycle again.

The isolation can work at the state or county level, that is easier to control and you can move some extra resources to the area. If the number of ill people is small enough you can isolate the person, whoever meet her/him, and whoever meet the persons that meet her/him. This is used with other illness, but it's easier if you have a vaccine to create a few concentrically rings of immunized people.

My amateur take:

1. Drug therapy may enable the "severe" hispitalization required cases to drop into stay at home cases.

2. It is not yet established at all that huge testing capacity + travel restrictions cant curb spread. See the Gates AMA.

However, it seems certain policies and travel restrictions will remain until an effective vaccine is available.

1. My concern is how long/much we destroy the economy (and people's lives) while waiting/hoping for the drug therapy's discovery, production and distribution.

2. If I am tested today, but get the virus tomorrow, the testing didn't help. Testing of everyone at once, and then immediate response would work, but I don't think that is realistic. This is the problem I see - that all the solutions out there don't scale to nation sizes. So the virus keeps spreading until we get herd immunity one way or another.

eh, a vaccine becoming available in the next year or two?

That is the only hope in my mind. But the government can't pay for everyone to stay home all that time. Hyperinflation is a terrible thing and it comes when governments start printing money wildly.