
Nobel laureate predicts a quicker coronavirus recovery - RickJWagner
https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2020-03-22/coronavirus-outbreak-nobel-laureate
======
smallgovt
The article is basically saying "we're going to be fine if we continue
implementing extreme social distancing measures".

In other words, if we stop panicking, and big hotspots don't implement extreme
social distancing measures, we won't be fine.

A certain level of panic is required to enforce efficacy of these social
distance programs, so it seems dangerous to spread this message less people
begin to act out of self interest.

~~~
manicdee
No amount of panic is useful, not ever.

A certain level of taking life and death situations seriously and doing the
next right thing towards controlling the situation is required, from
everybody.

cf Anna, “The Next Right Thing” Frozen 2
[https://youtu.be/p5B_EhxqAJo](https://youtu.be/p5B_EhxqAJo)

Panic = people dying needlessly

------
m3kw9
Looks like he got lucky predicting 80000 cases and that is reported cases. He
predicted the actual people that got tested and positive. He also is another
one of those that the flu is worse and not understanding the high severity of
many of the Covid cases is the thing that is what is worrying a lot of the
professionals. The last thing is that the economics involved that may not make
things fine in 1-2 year period, you cannot restart an economy like a light
switch.

~~~
partiallypro
Did he get lucky or did China fix the numbers to his conclusion? China has a
suspect history of magically hitting numbers on the mark, every time.

------
DoreenMichele
I feel like the headline is somewhat irresponsible. The framing encourages a
"don't worry, be happy" attitude. Reading the article, the message is more
like "If we keep doing the right things, we will be fine."

The problem with such a headline is it can be misinterpreted to mean you don't
need to make any effort whatsoever for things to "be fine." I think this is
not a great signal to send.

~~~
drcode
Exactly: I've actually been somewhat alarmist early on about this virus, but I
actually agree with the article. We've had to make some crazy sacrifices in
the last 2 weeks, but now that we've done those, things are actually looking
moderately optimistic:

Most of the US hopefully isn't going to become a "big Italy", besides a few
unfortunate hotspots. Other areas will still see heavy infections, but likely
without overwhelming the hospital systems, if we maintain at least some far
more moderate social distancing measures for another year.

...I do worry about the Deep South, due to poverty and lack of leadership by
governors in that area.

~~~
DoreenMichele
I am doing what I can to make resources available online. I've done this a
long time. I'm encouraged to see a lot of online resources popping up in
response to this.

My hope is that the most vulnerable areas will get some relief from local
issues because of the availability of online resources.

I run a Citizen Planners subforum. I write a bit about making money online.
Etc.

There's a lot of free information available online and the internet proved to
be a hugely helpful thing for me when I was homeless. It's proving to be a big
deal for helping people cope in the face of quarantines, etc.

I'm cautiously optimistic -- assuming we continue to take it seriously and
don't decide it's time to dance in the streets and party like it's 1999.

~~~
mercer
As a general response to this thread: it's a big problem over here in The
Netherlands that apparently tons of people are not properly practicing 'social
distancing'. There have been quite a few frustrating images shared that showed
a sign imploring people to keep 1.5m distance with a huge crowd right next to
it waiting to be let into some particular section of a park. Also pictures of
health care workers expressing their frustration at dealing with things while
the rest of the country acts like it's just a big vacation.

I expect that possibly tonight the government will impose a stronger
quarantine as a result, which is a shame. I had hoped we'd collectively better
at following advice.

More specifically in response to you: is there a way to discuss with you one
of these days what you're working on and perhaps in particular how perhaps
advice on how we might help the homeless here? I'd very much like to chat
about that, whether via email or some other channel.

~~~
DoreenMichele
You are always welcome to email me about my work. My email is in my profile.

------
fny
You can already see this playing out on this site which tracks the rate of new
cases along with the total cases:
[https://coronavirus.1point3acres.com/en](https://coronavirus.1point3acres.com/en)

I think the bigger issue that we'll need to address after we handle the case
influx is how we'll go about achieving herd immunity.

I'm starting to think it might be wise to consider letting small, not-at-risk
populations out with the intention of allowing the virus to spread in a
fashion that wouldn't overwhelm the health systems. A controlled burn, if you
will. I'd definitely join in to something like this.

~~~
ardit33
that's called a vaccine... and it is 12-18 months away...

you can start now by volunteering to join the vaccine trials....

------
jacquesm
Here's to hoping he is right.

Question to the virologists on HN: human cells have some limits on how many
generations they can be copied, have there even been similar mechanisms
observed in viruses?

~~~
jackyinger
I’m not a virologist, but I did pay attention in biology class fwiw.

Evolutionary, a virus that can only replicate a few times is a dead end.
That’d be like mule, a viable life form, but one that cannot reproduce
successfully.

Think about the mechanisms of cells with generation limits, I’d intuit that
they preform functions related to morphogenisis (we only want this bone to be
this long), and forcing evolutionary iteration by limiting the maximum age of
a individual. I’d posit that extreme longevity is an affront to evolution.

I could be totally off my rocker with the second part, but I’d like to think
that a basic knowledge of biology and an obsession with cellular automata
might have given me a useful intuition.

~~~
jacquesm
I was thinking more along the lines of a virus that is able to reproduce
indefinitely in one species, but after a species jump ends up being able to
reproduce only a limited number of generations due to the copying mechanism
being subtly different in the host cell of the new species. But you're right
that from an evolutionary standpoint such a virus would be a dead end if it
happened in any species.

It would very much depend on how - and if - the different ribosomes and other
cell mechanisms responsible for copying the viruses RNA (or DNA in some cases)
would deal with the virus.

The effect you'd see would be a species jump, followed by a very virulent
episode fizzling out when the copy errors accumulated to the point that the
copies would no longer be viable.

~~~
unsrsly
This is an interesting question!

Note that human stem cells and cancer cells do not have a limit on how many
times they can divide. This is because they possess the enzyme telomerase.

Also, note that in human reproduction, there is an unbroken lineage of cell
divisions through generations (egg and sperm are produced by specialized cell
divisions called meiosis, and combine in sexual reproduction to develop a new
human who can eventually produce more egg or sperm).

However, it is true that differentiated somatic cells (most of the cells in
your body) cannot divide indefinitely.

A virus, unlike a differentiated somatic cell, does not have an intrinsic
limit to how many times it can replicate. It hijacks cellular machinery to
make an exact replica of itself (+/\- any replication errors a.k.a. mutations
that occur).

However, a virus that becomes evolutionarily unfit could go extinct. If you
look at phylogenetic trees of viruses, there are many branches that go extinct
(become a dead end). But there are other branches that continue succeeding.
All of this is driven by evolutionary dynamics rather than by a lack of
telomerase leading to a hard limit on the number of times the virus can
replicate.

Now, just to blow your mind, oncogenic viruses like certain strains of HPV can
induce human cells to produce telomerase and become able to divide
indefinitely! Wowww this is so confusing!

------
nopinsight
Key points missing from the headline: social distancing is necessary, PPE
supplies must be sufficient, and healthcare system must not have broken down
for us ‘to be fine’.

He predicted the Chinese cessation of outbreak correctly because China
consistently implemented the lockdown plan across regions and had strict
measures to make sure of compliance.

From what we see, few western countries have bended the infection trajectory
sufficiently to see the outbreak ending soon. Some people’s behaviors and
general lack of mask wearing don’t help. (I think Germany may eventually
accomplish that. The 2-person-max meeting rule and relatively extensive
testing should help.)

[https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries](https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries)

We must read professional epidemiologists, like Marc Lipsitch of Harvard,
whose expertise is more relevant and who don’t have nearly as rosy a view on
the epidemic. (Marc is also on Twitter.)

[https://harvardmagazine.com/2020/03/lipsitch-call-to-
action](https://harvardmagazine.com/2020/03/lipsitch-call-to-action)

~~~
tathougies
Except China is clearly lying about having their outbreak contained. I'm not
sure why this is so difficult for everyone to realize.

~~~
throwanem
It would help, I think, if such claims were supported in ways that didn't make
them sound like conspiracy theories and fearmongering.

Perhaps you'd like to do so. If not, consider that this is a singularly bad
time to be spreading misinformation, no matter how plausible you may find it.
People are already frightened enough.

~~~
taiwanboy
[https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN21A014](https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN21A014)

China sees drop in new coronavirus cases; all new cases imported, March 22

[https://www.reddit.com/r/China/comments/fmz3d6/while_china_c...](https://www.reddit.com/r/China/comments/fmz3d6/while_china_claim_there_are_no_new_local_cases/)

Translated: On March 20th, A local community management issued a notice,
stating that one of the unit has 2 patient found, the unit will be sealed and
no one is allowed to enter or exit.

It essentaily means that they are starving to death in the room.

Don’t trust the Chinese government’s propaganda

~~~
throwanem
So, I'm not to trust a government - which is fair; I don't - but a totally
unsourced and unverifiable Reddit post is 100% okay? When its claim is that
the CCP is competent enough to enforce the murder by starvation of two
innocent people, while the existence of the post that makes the claim implies
that the CCP is too incompetent to prevent word of such a crime getting out,
even to the point of issuing an official document to prove they're doing it?

Do you see what I mean about seeming like a conspiracy theory? Heinlein's Red-
baiting about Soviet cosmonauts unpersoned when their early space capsules
failed and stranded them, despite being nonsense, had at least the virtue of
originality. But that was over half a century ago. I'd like to hope our
standards have risen in the interim.

~~~
taiwanboy
You are being a bit naive about journalism in an authoritarian country that
has control over digital media coming out of the country. The fact that this
picture made it out (suggesting that image recognition/AI censor rules are
still naive in China) is proof enough that there are voices desperately trying
to tell the outside world - don’t trust their government!!

------
W-Stool
Question from the cheap seats here : what causes a virus to "burn itself out"
or fail to keep replicating? A lack of new hosts it can infect? Environmental
details (heat, humidity)?

If anyone truly knows I'd like to hear it.

~~~
rosywoozlechan
I am not a credible source on this, but I believe if we achieve heard immunity
the virus burns itself out because it will eventually not find new hosts to
infect. The virus has to keep finding new hosts, because otherwise the people
infected will either get well and gain immunity or die. If enough people gain
immunity then the virus can't spread anymore. Not everyone has to be become
immune, just enough.

~~~
mhandley
The problem is that for this virus, "just enough" immune people is about 60%
of the population. If 1% of that 60% die, as will happen with COVID19, that's
a lot of deaths.

The other alternative is social distancing, so you can reduce R0 (the number
of people each infected person passes the virus on to) from something like
2.5-3 down to less than 1. Then it dies back by itself. This is what China and
South Korea succeeded in doing.

~~~
guscost
> If 1% of that 60% die, as will happen with COVID19, that's a lot of deaths.

I remain astounded by the level of certainty people can have about things
which they barely understand at all.

------
richk449
Since this is hacker news, where is the Girardian analysis? This situation
seems to call for it with the fear of outsiders and scapegoating. Hard to
worry about mimetic contagion when there is a real contagion?

------
neonate
[https://archive.md/doeNm](https://archive.md/doeNm)

------
lph
We're going to be fine... whew, that's a relief...

> Levitt said the social-distancing mandates are critical

...as long as we practice fastidious social distancing, which, at least in the
U.S., big parts of the country are utterly failing at...

> The goal needs to be better early detection — not just through testing but
> perhaps with body temperature surveillance...and immediate social isolation.

...and if we have widely deployed testing, which the U.S. government has
failed at spectacularly.

So: We're going to be fine if we take this seriously and have a coordinated,
competent government response. I'll be in my doomsday bunker if anyone needs
me.

~~~
ykevinator
Not sure social distancing is materially effective

~~~
thephyber
My intuition tells me otherwise. Do you have evidence that I don’t?

------
hn_throwaway_99
2 points:

1\. The fact that the author is a Nobel laureate adds no weight to his
conclusions. The Nobel laureate who invented PCR was otherwise what I would
describe as "crazy" \- he was a notorious HIV denialist for years. Not saying
this Nobel laureate is, but Nobels go for novel discoveries, not for being the
best scientist.

2\. Look at the amount of extreme lockdowns that have been deployed in China
for _months_ to get this reduction in transmission (assuming they aren't
lying). There was a Twitter thread posted here recently describing the current
situation in Wuhan, and their "lightened" levels of current restrictions are
way more intense then any of the shelter-in-place restrictions in the US.

~~~
ykevinator
Right, see Linus Pauling

~~~
senderista
Or Brian Josephson

------
nardi
Uh, why the hell would we listen to a chemist’s opinion about a pandemic?
There is literally a whole field of science that studies this, and it’s not
remotely similar to chemistry.

------
Der_Einzige
If you don't do what China or South Korea did, we're not "going to be fine".
The US handling of this is extremely poor. One shouldn't give the people false
hope.

~~~
forgingahead
I also don't think you (and others) should be gleefully clutching pearls for
too long just yet. Yes, western governments have been woefully unprepared and
very slapshot in their response to this. Yes, valuable time was wasted. But
please avoid the trap the media wants to drown us all in, that of despair and
permanent anxiety.

We will solve this, one way or another. It won't be easy, and there will be a
ton of pain (a lot of which is already being felt). But a solution will be
found (my best guess: probably a vaccine in the medium to long run, and in the
short to medium term stronger testing and isolation regimes to let us get back
to some semblance of normal life again)

~~~
pavas
Beating this thing requires sacrifice and it seems very few people are willing
to voluntarily do it. There is no reason to despair or panic or be anxious if
you are following the proper precautions to prevent its spread.

I think there is just cause for spreading fear until people get it into their
heads that this is serious and behave accordingly, at which point the focus
needs to switch towards keeping people optimistic and healthy in isolation
without social interaction.

The alternative is millions of deaths and a collapse of our medical system.

------
willis936
15,000 people are dead. Forget being fine for a moment. This is a substantial
loss of life compared to recent wars. That number is guaranteed to, at the
absolute minimum, double, but has a more probable lower bound at 100,000.

This will be a death toll that hasn’t been seen in a lifetime. Yeah, maybe the
economy won’t collapse. Maybe it will. Regardless, it’s unkind to downplay the
severity of the situation.

~~~
rootusrootus
At a macro level, we need perspective. This year around 3 million people will
die for various reasons in the US. 15K deaths would be a rounding error, and
even 100K wouldn't move the needle much.

COVID19 is scary and we should respond, but we are panicking well out of
proportion to the threat. We should continue to make our best effort to
prevent it from spreading while getting society back to some kind of normal
footing, and then use the lesson as an opportunity to improve our preparations
and planning for the next time.

~~~
pavas
I think a good lower bound for the number of COVID19-related deaths in the USA
without proper measures is somewhere in the millions, not hundreds of
thousands. And that includes a very large blow to our medical system.

This is one of those cases where the disease is far worse than the cure.

