
Ask HN: Will there be “coronavirus parties”? - Kaibeezy
Like those “chicken pox parties” for kids, but with the intention of having better access to medical care before the system gets overloaded. Looking at the charts, like the NYTimes one I posted about earlier, it’s a pretty obvious conclusion that timing will affect outcome if you get a bad case of this.
======
notahacker
Per the other thread on this[1], this is in general a terrible idea, not least
because the people intentionally infecting themselves with COVID-19 will be
the ones overloading the system by artificially accelerating its spread.

[1][https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22565408](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22565408)

I'd also suspect that if the system becomes overloaded, perhaps because of an
artificial increase in the number of cases generated by 'coronavirus parties',
people that admit to intentionally infecting themselves in the hope of being
at the front of the ICU queue will find themselves at the back.

~~~
Kaibeezy
I did not see the other thread :( What’s the protocol? Should I delete this
one? Copy your replies over?

~~~
notahacker
Think it generally just drops off naturally.

------
drKarl
Like I read in a post in LessWrong, it's much better to try to avoid contagion
until after the peak of the pandemic, so that there are more resources freed
up (hospital beds, respirators, etc) and the doctors and health workers have
more experience in dealing with this particular virus, maybe there's existing
drugs that have proven effective with this virus unlike on the early stages
where they don't know what drugs to use (apparently some HIV drugs could
potentially be useful against SARS-CoV-2). Not new drugs specifically develop
for this virus, that could be years from now. So, social distancing, try to
avoid crowds, try to stay at home, clean your hands (follow the protocol to
clean them), clean and disinfect surfaces, WFH if possible, and so on...
Anecdotally, I think the UK strategy of letting the virus run its course so
that the country gets some sort of herd immunity it's a very dangerous bet...
Lots of elderly people in the country will die, and it won't guarantee any
immunity as people have gotten the disease twice. Maybe they are counting on
lots of elderly people dying to save on pensions and healthcare costs
(healthcare is public and free in the UK).

~~~
goodcanadian
_I think the UK strategy of letting the virus run its course . . ._

This is not my impression of the UK strategy at all. Until now, there has been
very aggressive contact tracing and testing. There has been no need for mass
closures and restrictions. The strategy is now shifting. I suspect those
closures and restrictions are coming. There is danger in doing it too early,
however, and definitely no point in isolating people who in all likelihood are
perfectly healthy.

~~~
drKarl
[https://www.itv.com/news/2020-03-12/british-government-
wants...](https://www.itv.com/news/2020-03-12/british-government-wants-uk-to-
acquire-coronavirus-herd-immunity-writes-robert-peston/)

"The strategy of the British government in minimising the impact of Covid-19
is to allow the virus to pass through the entire population so that we acquire
herd immunity"

[https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11164977/millions-uk-
coronavir...](https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11164977/millions-uk-coronavirus-
herd-immunity/)

If you search about this you'll find many other sources...

So basically the UK wants to acquire herd immunity as a country, which I
assume is at the expense of all the elderly people who will die as a result...

Also relevant

[https://twitter.com/daverooney/status/1238359192249008128](https://twitter.com/daverooney/status/1238359192249008128)

~~~
thinkingemote
The point I think is one of delaying things "Letting it run its course"
implies no action, which would be not correct.

Herd immunity is desired but with change in the nature of the epidemic so that
old people don't die as much as if they did nothing.

Also herd immunity.is not 100%, you just need a certain high proportion. If
you can protect those most at risk also then it could work.

------
seren
I understand what you mean, it is much better to be contaminated before the
system is overwhelmed, however if you are in Europe or US, that ship has
already sailed.

The time you'll get symptoms in about 5 days, the system might be already
overtaxed, and getting voluntarily exposed to the virus will only stress the
system more.

And God forbids if everyone got that same idea at once.

~~~
thinkingemote
Also, once you have symptoms the worst stuff might happen after these fever
and coughs end.

------
lm28469
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22565408](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22565408)

------
duxup
Much longer term there will be a vaccine, so if someone is worried about
developing immunity they have other options later on (if somehow they aren't
exposed anyway).

In the meantime getting infected before a peak that occurs at an unknown time
seems much riskier than doing so long after.

