
Ask HN: Isolation (from coronavirus) is only a temporary band-aid that will fail - DougN7
One infected person infects 2 to 3 other people on average. This is exponential spread.  This will remain true until enough people have immunity that the chance of infecting someone new drops below 1.  This is the so called &quot;herd immunity&quot;.  This requires 60-70% of a population to have immunity.<p>Immunity comes from a person having been exposed to the virus and getting better, or a vaccine.  To get to the 60-70% point in the US, roughly 220 million people need to be exposed and heal, or get vaccinated.<p>Getting 220 million people exposed, at a rate of 1 million per month (which will still overwhelm the health care system) would take almost 20 years.  Flattening the curve simply takes too long with such a large population.  Finding, creating, distributing and vaccinating 220 million people would take a number of years?  (guessing on that).<p>No government can afford to pump $1 trillion into the economy every quarter to prop it up, and do this for a number of years.  They will have to start printing money to do that, which leads directly to hyperinflation, which destroys countries and leads to starvation and death.<p>Isolation delays the inevitable but doesn&#x27;t stop it.  Testing and tracing contacts to isolate the infected only works if it is perfect.   If we miss 1 person out of 330 million in the US, that 1 person will start the entire cycle again.  China is not out of the woods - if they missed 1 person the cycle will begin again.<p>Where is the hole in the above rationale?<p>(I wish the above wasn&#x27;t true, but my wishes don&#x27;t count for anything)
======
sova
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.

~~~
DougN7
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.

~~~
sova
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.

~~~
DougN7
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.

------
sharemywin
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.

~~~
DougN7
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.

------
solarkraft
> 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.

~~~
DougN7
> 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.

------
gus_massa
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.

------
chub500
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.

~~~
DougN7
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.

------
c89X
eh, a vaccine becoming available in the next year or two?

~~~
DougN7
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.

