Hacker News Reader

Comment by nikofeyn | Hacker News Reader

that article says nothing about herd immunity.

> They have nothing under control

i think you have a vastly different definition of "under control" than i do.

> Their population is still vulnerable and has no antibodies.

again, do you have scientific evidence that backs such a claim up? i'm not claiming it doesn't exist, but it'd be nice if people making implications based upon such claims provide evidence for them.

> The U.S. did not have a monolithic response. Many states never shut down, and never experienced overrun hospitals. Many states had light restrictions and never experienced overrun hospitals. Some states sent sick people to nursing homes and then had overrun hospitals

what is your point, exactly?

View on HN

Not the OP, but "not enough antibodies" is a crystal clear case: once antibodies get above HIT percentage, the epidemic dies out very quickly.

In general, a contagious virus, like COVID-19, can be stopped in only one of three ways:

(1) by acquiring herd immunity, which for most viruses requires exposure of 30-95% of the population (check HIT values for various diseases in wikipedia; initial COVID estimates are somewhere in 29-80%). Neither SK nor China is there yet. Even Sweden or Belarus are not there yet. Even Africa is unlikely to be there yet.

(2) by completely stamping it out (with aggressive decontamination, quarantines, etc.). Again, neither SK nor China is there (this is obvious, they do not even claim it; see school re-closing in SK, Jilin flare up in China, etc.)

(3) by vaccination. Again, no vaccinations in SK, China or anywhere for this matter.

So coronavirus is not "under control" anywhere. We might just accept that and focus on some other things that would be just as nice to get under control: heart disease, cancer, opioid addiction, etc. Just my 2c.

To be fair, you listed the requirements to "stop" an infectious disease, but then claimed them not being met meant it wasn't "under control". Those are two different things. The disease can be "under control" with the caveat that it only remains so as long as we continue to take certain precautions. Once it's "stopped", those precautions aren't really necessary.

Agreed. I assumed a particular interpretation of "under control" which could have been different from what the poster meant.

New Zealand appears to have achieved (2).

Best of luck to it (no irony!). That said, it might not hold. Stamping out the virus (2) requires keeping a perimeter around all existing carriers. New Zealand, being naturally removed from other countries, has some advantages in this regard. But even there, as soon as travel restarts reintroduction is not unlikely. We will see...

For example, many countries kept mandatory smallpox vaccinations long after the disease was eradicated within their borders because otherwise a single traveler can wreak havoc. Check for example smallpox reintroduction to Yugoslavia in 1972 by a single pilgrim. A quick martial law and quarantines helped contain it, but even then it caused, according to Wikipedia, 175 infections and 35 deaths.

If COVID-19 is as virulent as it is claimed to be I would not bet on NZ staying COVID-free after travel restarts. My 2c.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com