It would be good if the same strategy could somehow be applied to the person-to-person spread of misinformation. But that's harder, witness some of the comments here.
You know, for as much as I've heard about the supposed danger of "misinformation", so many factual observations have been labeled "misinformation" early on, only to be later confirmed by WHO, a major national authority, or a medical journal.
The type of misinformation matters a lot, because if people take the concerns about permanent lung damage, reproductive damage, and the extreme contagiousness of the virus seriously, it doesn't matter if they were "misinformed" to some extent. If the misinformation encourages them to not take things seriously, or to breach social distancing (see Rudy Gobert, who should hope he hasn't committed homicide for a laugh), that's when it is the most dangerous.
All it would take us a few people who catch Coronavirus in addition to one of the many things floating around with similar symptoms to think they caught it twice. It’s just too easy.
Just so people know: this has not been confirmed and has been an unsubstantiated rumor for a while. It is pretty unlikely this will happen considering what we know about how things like this function on a physiological level. It is much more likely due to the changes is testing (mostly where on the body samples were taken), confusion about symptoms or false negatives.
Of course, SARS-CoV-2 could be different. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, there was no data on this.
Slow the infection rate (but not too much) till we hit enough cases to have herd immunity, which will then slow the rate significantly till it mostly dies out (I suspect this has happened in China and South Korea, if not they will suffer the consequences later as the virus is reintroduced unnoticed from another country).
Since it won't be stamped out worldwide this year, there's no point in attempting complete eradication and tracing all contacts. That means the aim of reducing the spread should not be to avoid infections, but to to reach herd immunity in an ordered way without taxing healthcare systems too much on the way.
How could it have if only a negligible fraction of the population caught it?
If it were not a significant fraction in infected areas I’d expect it to flare up again quickly. Quarantine simply cannot be maintained indefinitely, nor is it going to stop all spread.
Is it possible that many people, in fact, are infected but do not get sick?
And it is not what has happened in any population except maybe a few groups of medical workers who were treating patients in outbreak zones.
But it's a fantasy because of how slow the controlled spread would have to be.
Some of the best medical systems in the world have been pushed into chaos with less than 1/1000th of the population infected. This level has increased the mortality rate by two to ten fold, depending on age group (with younger groups seeing a much greater increase).
If each 1/1000th of the population takes weeks to be infected and recover, then this plan will take at least a decade to reach the levels of exposure required for herd immunity. And by that point, the virus will likely have mutated into something that those previously infected can catch, destroying the benefit of the plan.
The only solution right now is total quarantine. Even maintaining infection rates of 1/1000th of the population is going to require that.
It's really impossible to give figures like that with any certainty, given so many people seem to be asymptomatic, and how concentrated some of the outbreaks have been. Which area are you considering where you think infections are 1/1000?
Whether it's a fantasy or not, our best hope at this stage is controlling spread. Total quarantine is simply not possible, since people need to go out for food, and will also increase infections within family groups stuck together in close quarters. There is no simple solution.
Current advice is to self-isolate for 7 days if persistent cough suddenly appears and/OR a temperature of 37.5°C (that is not high temperature).
That sound like good advice, but they are not going to test those cases unless it ends in hospital. And they don't want you to call to the NHS help line or go to the doctor (again, not bad advice but I see some people getting anxious about this; IMHO at least the help line should be available because most people aren't doctors).
Considering that it could be a mild case of the disease or any other common seasonal disease (I have two toddlers at home: they get ill), how can we tell we had passed the disease and we have some immunity?
Besides, if testing and tracing stops, it means there won't be information about the progression of the epidemic in the UK; which sounds to me like a bad idea (but I'm not an expert).
Considering how the Conservative government has been underfunding the public health system for 10 yeas, I understand how their approach can be seen by some as untrustworthy.
EDIT: I see this may be off-topic re: herd immunity, sorry about that.
Yes, there will. It will be inferred from hospital stats.
Testing and tracing (apparently; I'm no expert, parroting what I've read from experts) is only useful in the contain phase. After that, you're better focusing on slowing the spread in the delay phase.
That said, Singapore and China have shown success with testing, tracing, and extreme measures. The assumption of the UK Government, however, is that in the long-term these measures will fail and kill more people than following a delay phase strategy.
Of course there was no herd immunity at the start - nobody had had it yet!
Francois Balloux (Computational biologist, director of UGI at UCL): "How long immunity lasts for following covid-19 infection is the biggest unknown. Comparison with other Coronaviridae suggests it may be relatively short-lived (i.e. months). If this were to be confirmed, it would add to the challenge of managing the pandemic.
It's not inconsistent per say, since it still seems that the recent reinfections were likely due to test error or rare poor immune response, but my initial comment is misleading enough that I retract it (and would delete it if I could).
NOTE: I am not anti-vaccine. This is intended as a nuanced point
I haven’t seen the term used for small pox in the Modern Era, but I believe it would be fair to say even though the small pox vaccine hadn’t been invented (and wouldn’t be until 1796), there were definitely periods of herd immunity in major European cities/ports of the time as it absolutely destroyed the previously unexposed Native American population.
But when dealing with “learned immunity” due to previous exposure as compared to natural/genetic immunity to the same diseases and the antibodies are not passed down from mother to child, what you’re going to see is a resurgence in cases as each new generation loses that immunity. In the present case, the unvaccinated herd immunity would be something to keep spread in check until a vaccinated herd immunity can take its place (assuming the vaccine isn’t developed before 80% of the remaining population has been exposed to and has recovered from this particular variant of the coronavirus).
\* at least that’s the number we were taught in my livestock/farm animals veterinary medicine class a decade ago.
I appreciate you taking the time to correct me.
paper showing it good in vitro https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/32150618/
medcram talking about that https://youtu.be/vE4_LsftNKM?t=200
some semi evidence of it working in real life - the lupus patients didn't get it in Wuhan here https://www.jqknews.com/news/388543-The_novel_coronavirus_pn...
I was wondering how you could encourage people to try it and see if it works. My idea - if you got a thousand health frontline workers to try and compared with a similar number who didn't you may get decent data in a week or two if lots of one group got sick and the other didn't. Or it might not work. Don't know till you try though and could save many lives.
I wonder if this is would be more effective in the second stage of getting COVID-19, which is the immune system going haywire rather than the virus directly causing problems.
Tocilizumab seems good for the later stages
Prophylaxis, taking the drugs before catching the virus, remains a bit untested.
(Here’s a translate link for anyone who can’t read mandarin. https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&...)
The second one is a different drug isn’t it? An arthritis drug rather than an anti-malarial.
Imho, precisely this wealth of experience is driving a lot of people to overthinking it, looking too much at the long-term big picture and not weighting the immediate costs correctly. Some people have ended up in Strangelove territory and we risk paying a big price for it. Saving more people right now is worth, say, a longer impact on the economy or longer quarantine measures, if anything because those are social constructs that can adapt - whereas our bodies work only one way.
This is not an argument in 2020. This is the kind of exceptionalism i m talking about
Without such transparency, it's easy to assume they've calculated they'll lose more votes to a recession that they would to predominantly Tory-voting elderly people dying. It's not saying this is their actual motivation, but secrecy breeds suspicion.