I don't think DUers understand that the number of people expected to get it will be the same...

[LAS14]

…. whether there are or are not mitigating actions like shelter-in-place. Mitigating actions are targeted to reducing the RATE of infection so that ICUs aren’t overrun and so that people who need care and ventilators don’t die needlessly. We do not expect to reduce the final number of people who get infected. The interview in this link with Dr David Katz speaks to the benefits of young, healthy people getting the disease sooner rather than later. Katz is the expert that Thomas Friedman relies on.

IMPORTANT: It may seem that he’s recommending not doing a nation wide shutdown, but he points out that the NYT Op Ed they discuss was written 10 days before it was published due to fact checking and editorial review, etc., and the time for action had passed.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2020/03/27/should-virus-shutdown-be-modified-to-prevent-other-fallout.cnn

So, if someone in a young, healthy family gets COVID-19, it is not reasonable to assume that the rest of the family will never get it if the infected person takes care. He/she can take care and the rest of the family will get it over an extended period of time in the months ahead, as shelter-at-home restrictions are lifted.

Those are the facts. We are assuming that some percentage of the population (60%, I think), ARE GOING TO GET IT. We just can’t tolerate their all getting it at once.

So it is not hate filled to suggest that an intelligent family go ahead and let themselves get it early. NOTE – Of course all members of the family must self quarantine fourteen days after the infected person is no longer communicable. That assumes frequent testing. But it is not at hateful idea to think about.

[HarlanPepper]

1. Aren't you the one who said Chris Cuomo should infect his wife and kids?

[LisaL]

9. One and the same.

[Bev54]

32. I don't think you realize

that this disease is killing young healthy people as well. I will never deliberately put anyone at risk. Healthy children are now dying as well as healthy young adults.

[janterry]

2. I have understood this but I hope for a Fall vaccine

There is reason to hope for an early vaccine (Fauci said maybe by Fall). So, maybe

[Hermit-The-Prog]

3. On the other hand, see South Korea for a more sensible approach.

[LAS14]

11. It's too late for a South Korea approach in most parts of the country.

[jayfish]

4. Who Doesn't Get This?

That's what "flattening the curve" is about. Spread the cases out so as to not overwhelm the healthcare-industrial complex.

[enki23]

5. I understand your point, but what you are saying isn't actually true.

Epidemiological models are more complex than simple mathematical curve fitting exercises. For just one example: flattening the curve pushes more of the curve out later allowing for herd immunity to begin to have an effect at lower levels of infection. If you don't flatten the curve, then most everyone ends up getting it at almost the same time, pushing herd immunity effects off till it's too late to do as much good. That increases the overall number of infected by a lot.

TLDR: Flattening the curve, in epidemiological models, almost always leads to a smaller area under the curve as well. That means fewer infected, period.

[LisaL]

8. China is a prime example of that.

[Igel]

24. They did more than flatten the curve.

They achieved a kind of containment. Everybody that had it was prevented from spreading it. When the last infectious person stopped being infectious, when the last bit on a surface died, there was no way for it to spread.

That's containment.

If that is what they achieved. It's what's claimed.

[LisaL]

31. Isn't that what we are hoping for?

[LAS14]

14. I sure hope this is true.

"For just one example: flattening the curve pushes more of the curve out later allowing for herd immunity to begin to have an effect at lower levels of infection. "

Do you have a link?

tia
las

[enki23]

23. Three very basic epi models

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~ahoyerle/math333/ThreeBasicModels.pdf

Most relevant is the SIR model without vital dynamics, hopefully.

[LisaL]

6. That hasn't been the case in China.

If their numbers are anywhere near accurate, 60% of population didn't get it.

[LAS14]

12. In all of China or in the infected province?

[LisaL]

30. Wuhan alone has 11 million people.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

7. The idea is to put off getting it for as long as possible,

preferably until a vaccine is available, or at least until there are some helpful treatments and the hospitals are equipped and staffed well enough to handle people who become sick enough to need hospitalization. By that time - I hope - enough people have had it and are (maybe) immune that it won't be so widespread in communities. Once almost everyone has either had it or been vaccinated for it, it should turn into something more manageable like the seasonal flu. But that's at least a year out, probably more.

[LAS14]

13. Yeah, but that is relevant for the vulnerable population, but not...

... so much for the rest of the population.

[GulfCoast66]

17. All of the population is vulnerable.

Your heads in the sand.

Sure, people in their 30-50s have a less chance of dying. But it a much higher percentage than in the regular flu.

You outdated idea is left over from 100 years ago. Even with no vaccine we should expect better treatment as time goes on. And eventually we will have a vaccine.

Your approach is what we had to do with few effective treatments and no vaccines.

If I did not believe vaccines or improving treatments were effective I would agree with your idea.

[Ms. Toad]

18. Vulnerable or not -

EVERY sick person has the potential to take one of the beds needed right now to avoid choosing who gets the ventilator, and who gets to die.

The entire point is to avoid exceeding the resources available. The resources don't care whether the person they are used on believed they were vulnerable or not. If someone who believed themselves non-vulnerable uses them, they are just as in use as they are when a vulnerable person uses them - and they will not be available for someone else..

[tirebiter]

10. Sounds almost like me trying to get all the std's I could get in a number of provocative ways.

But we had penicillin then. And it worked

[customerserviceguy]

15. That may be true of a lot of people, but

We have no young people in our lives. My 38 year old son and his wife live on the West Coast, and we just saw them a couple of months ago when we visited there by air.

During lulls between waves, we can restock. Right now, we've got enough stuff to get us through the next two, maybe three months. If we restock in safe ways, with enough quantity, we will be able to ride this out until a vaccine comes along, and hopefully is available first to seniors.

If, by your estimate, 60% of the people are going to get it, then that means 40% won't. We intend to be in that group. And I would like as many people here as possible to be within that group. But deliberately getting people infected isn't going to help anything.

[Ms. Toad]

16. Deliberately seeking to get it early is not hate-filled, but it is stupid.

Younger healthy people come into contact with older and vulnerable people. They engage in these contacts before they are symptomatic. Some of that will occur out of necessity - for example when people go out to get essential food. Lots of illnesses at this time are unavoidable because essential people are still out and about - and transmission will occur in that population.

Everyone (including young and otherwise healthy people) needs to stay the f%$k home so that the ONLY transmission now is the transmission that is unavoidable. The entire point is to delay as many infections as humanly possible right now, because (1) every additional infection now multiplies and moves us farther from flattening the curve (i.e. moving us above the resources available line) and (2) even young otherwise healthy people still end up in the hospital and use precious resources. Any added infection has the potential to be part of the "over the resources we have available right now" cases - which means increasing the possibity that othes will die (for lack of medical resources) because of their stupidity.

It has nothing to do with lack of knowedge that the number of cases will be the same. It has to do with anyone advocating this option is missing the point that there are finite medical resources at any one time (i.e. right now) and that those resources need to be reserved for anyonen who cannot avoid getting the illness right now. NO ONE should be intentionally getting the disease now because the pile of people who cannot avoid it right now will exceed our medical capacity.

[EllieBC]

19. My opinion on your Boomer-esque request for Cuomo

to infect his wife and kids for the benefit of all is still: that’s a bullshit garbage entitled request.

[Progressive Jones]

25. Not every "Boomer" is the one you have in your imagination. nt

[Phoenix61]

20. No, but it is stupid. You have no way of knowing

if you have a hyper immune system that will produce a cytokine storm that will kill you. If you want to play Russian Roulette with your family I don’t see how anyone can stop you but I’ll pass.

[Mike 03]

21. I'll bet most of us understood it, but two days ago I heard an expert disagree

and say it's not possible to know, and that flattening the curve actually could result in fewer infections.

[uponit7771]

22. ****** NO !!!! ***** IF we start testing with no prerequisites, Isolate the infected, clean our ...

... environment we get out of the soup.

The issue ... RIGHT NOW ... is the lack of unrestricted, nationwide par per capita testing ... RIGHT NOW ...

[El Supremo]

26. If the hospitals are full then more will die.

No matter if the same number are infected.

[LAS14]

33. Exactly. That's why you want the young, healthy people to become immune. We hope...

.. the elderly and otherwise vulnerable never get it. They will have more chance of never getting it if the people around them are immune.

[Ms. Toad]

38. Nothing protects the young, healthy person from needing hospital resources.

And right now, there are none to spare. When those young, healthy individuals get vented, and venting is rationed, granny will die because of their stupidity - and because every rationing plan I've seen cuts out granny in favor of the young idiot who decided to get sick and get it over with. Save the hospital beds and vents so that there are enough to serve everone (regardless of age) who needs the resources.

Now is NOT the time for herd immunity. It is the time to preserve every single medical resource we have for those who cannot avoid catching COVID 19.

[Freethinker65]

27. I think DUers are smarter than you think

Flattening the curve was always about decreasing the rate of infection so hospitals would not be overwhelmed.

Most people who become infected will never require hospitalization. It is important that there are beds and ventilators available for those that do and other non COVID-19 patients that require hospital services.

Unless a vaccine is developed, most will become infected with COVID-19 eventually.

The curve of positives because of increased testing means practically nothing. The hospitalization and death curves are the ones to watch.

[greenjar_01]

28. I'm mystified that DU continues to allow this dangerous nonsense

Mystified.

[GulfCoast66]

37. Almost like anti-vaccine stuff

[blitzen]

29. Here is where you are, potentially, DEAD wrong...

The later you get it, the better chance there will be decent treatment (medication or antibodies), even prophylactic medicine to lessen severity, better knowledge of how to treat in hospital and better equipment. Anyone who wants to get it now is doubly foolish: contributing to surge that health system might not be able to handle, and exposing oneself, family, etc. to modes of treatment/prevention that are in their infancy now but may be fairly robust by early fall.

That being said, eventually we want a large percentage to have gotten the virus, to reduce spread until a vaccine is ready.

Sweden tried to go the route of letting people get it, and now they are royally fucked.

[Sunsky]

34. I don't think you understand

That what you are proposing is different than the article you shared. Dr. Katz did not in any way say the numbers will remain the same whether we shelter in place or not. In fact he states that self-isolation is helpful. Also, he gave an anecdotal opinion that it may be better to send the younger and more healthy people out and they, catch the disease, develop immunity and will be able to help others during the crisis. However, he stressed, testing, testing, testing. He could not try to convey more that nobody knows for sure if this would work, that's why we need testing.
You cannot formulate treatment regiment based on an anecdote, there has to be evidence gathering before we start suggesting the implementation of measures.
Saying Dr. So and So suggest this, therefore young and healthy people should go out and infect themselves, is risky and reckless. Take Trump and his chloroquine obsession for example; it may be proven that he was right and a cocktail of chloroquine and zithromax will be the treatment prescribed for COVID-19. However, to blindly suggest usage without strong evidence is irresponsible and unethical.
To implement something like the Dr. implied would take a large scale testing such as antibody testing, maybe genetic testing, because we need the profile of people who got infected and recovered. Why did some young, healthy people die while majority didn't? I'm under, 40 and nobody will tell me to go infect myself or my children.
As stated in the previous discussion, how are we certain there is no unknown underlying condition that would impact the presentation of covid-19 in Cuomo's family? Therefore, should they have a thorough medical examination prior to purposely infecting themselves? Without a full understanding of this disease, let's not suggest anyone purposely infect themselves.
There are many unknowns in this scenario. This is why experts need to stick with the evidence.

[LAS14]

36. It's risky and reckless as a general bit of advice, but for individual...

... families, who understand that the exposed other members must self quarantine for 14 days the after the infected person is no longer infectious I still think it is a good idea. It's too complicated for general advice to the population.

[struggle4progress]

35. A lot depends on the time over which the infection spreads:

if the infections can be spread out, the death rate is likely to decrease; and as health providers get more experience, we'll get better treatment options

[Brainfodder]

39. No chance in hell for us, but considered it for about 2 mins.

Spacing us out across the healthcare system IS why we are staying put.

My own motivating factors include NOT having ANY health insurance, and that is a whopper, the cost of getting through it for one person who has it go south is $50,000 USD+ expected at a hospital and probably closer to $100,000 USD.

That cost is not one I can take lightly, myself, my wife, and my mom are all medium risk+.

So wait for the vaccine we go, like everyone else.

Doesn't matter what other people do as much now for us, we are deliveries only until a vaccine appears, just dumb luck that I can just barely afford to wait for it, but can't afford it actually occuring, pretty fucked up place to be.

I don't envy anyone, never have, but this is going to suck on a hellfire scale, I fear, and I just have to dodge it.

Good luck!