[aaron-lebo]

Goes without saying, but it is shocking how quickly the world has changed. The easy take would be that a lot of people are finding out how the other half lives, without easy access to healthcare or using credit cards to pay bills, but the poorer are disproportionately affected.

The only positive, if there is one, is the ability to really consider how our societies operate, how dangerous apathy and incompetence are and for tech workers more specifically, to realize how much of an impact our work has.

The next time someone wants to act like they know what the future looks like, remind them to have some humility. Be safe yall. This too shall pass.

[RhysU]

> The easy take would be that a lot of people are finding out how the other half lives...

...and that the market has already priced in the uncertainty. So long as the expected value improves, the markets can weather a long tail of suffering absent political upheaval that might change the game.

The media has spent years trumpeting that things are broken and precarious. That many folks cannot pay their mobile phone bills or cable bills or credit card bills at the first hint of a downturn is not news.

[cactus2093]

Sorry but I can't help but remark on the contradiction in your last paragraph... Nobody knows for sure what the future will look like, but don't worry, you know that this too shall pass and things will go back to normal.

Just reminding you to have some humility.

[iamthirsty]

> you know that this too shall pass and things will go back to normal.

No, we don't. Who knows if this coronavirus will ever truly go away? What will the new "normal" be like when—if—things truly settle down. Surely our world will be forever marked by this event.

[__blockcipher__]

> Who knows if this coronavirus will ever truly go away?

Wait, what?

I keep hearing this notion floated around and I'm honestly very confused.

Are people under the impression that our lockdowns are going to eradicate this? Or are you using "going away" as a metaphor for "will recede to the background level of death from flu/etc that we have learned to tune out?"

It should be stunningly obvious that a highly infectious respiratory disease that is present in every country, originally came from animals and has shown the ability to infect other animals will never be eradicated. There's too many reservoirs, even if the totalitarian dream that everyone seems to want were a full reality.

If you meant the other sense, then it should be equally obvious that this will eventually pass through the population and we will build immunity to it, at which point Covid-19 joins the friendly cast of characters such as the common cold coronaviruses, common cold rhinoviruses, adenoviruses, influenza, etc. In short, a disease that kills people but not in numbers that we freak out about. (And incidentally once the globe has been exposed to it it should be much less deadly than Influenza since new humans will be exposed to it as babies/young children and not as 80+ year old nursing home patients, and Covid simply does not kill young children in significant numbers)

What's that? Do I hear the "There's no evidence for immunity to covid-19" crowd in the distance? I'm getting a bit tired of that line, but if someone wants me to dismantle that argument (again) I am happy to.

[xkapastel]

> It should be stunningly obvious

> it should be equally obvious

Clearly it is not obvious, considering most people have never spent a significant amount of time thinking about how infectious diseases work.

> What's that? Do I hear the "There's no evidence for immunity to covid-19" crowd in the distance? I'm getting a bit tired of that line, but if someone wants me to dismantle that argument (again) I am happy to.

Why make a snarky, coy comment like this? If you have something to say about immunity then just say it. In fact the WHO are among those who make this claim[0], so "dismantle" away.

[0]: https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/immunity-p...

[__blockcipher__]

"immunity" is a bit of an imprecise term. There's two major components:

(1) The presence of active circulating antibodies, which in sufficient concentrations should result in literal immunity in the sense of inability to catch the virus

Eventually those circulating antibodies will no longer be actively present, but you'll still have

(2) Memory B Cells which lie dormant, waiting for exposure to viral antigens at which point they ramp up antibody production like crazy.

So in the worst case scenario, immunity in the sense of inability to be infected disappears after X months, but any infection would be much milder and would clear much more quickly than normal with lower peak viral load.

Let's talk about "herd immunity" while we're at it since that's been branded as a "dirty word (phrase)". Herd immunity is just the logical consequence of individual immunity as applied to population-level dynamics. So people that don't "believe" in herd immunity are like people that don't believe in evolution, in that both logically follow from the ground truths.

--

Nothing I've said there contradicts the WHO, but it's worth mentioning that at this point it seems inaccurate to say "there is no evidence" rather than to say "there is not overwhelming evidence", and they've sort of given themselves away with this line:

> People who assume that they are immune to a second infection because they have received a positive test result may ignore public health advice

So, as always, they carefully shape statements to try to control behavior.

--

Anyway, I'm actually not trying to argue against the WHO here, but rather the hordes of people who trot out the "we don't know if there even is immunity" to try to argue that "herd immunity" is a foolish/dangerous proposition when the truth is that it's how we deal with every non-containable pandemic. That is what I was getting at with my needlessly snarky and coy comment.

BTW, just to be clear, vaccines rely on the same principle. So those who point to the uncertainty as an argument "against" herd immunity (which again to me is like arguing "against evolution" since both herd immunity and evolution are logical consequences of some simple ground truths taken to their logical conclusions), are also arguing against hunkering down for 2.5 years while we develop a vaccine.

[williamstein]

Just to support your argument, according to Wikipedia only one human disease has ever been eradicated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eradication_of_infectious_dise... It is thus unlikely that Covid will be eradicated, and much more likely that it will be endemic. My best guess is that when people talk about Covid being "eradicated" they are making a mistake and really mean something like "there is a vaccine"...

[__blockcipher__]

Yeah, I think that's what many people mean. Although I have actually talked to a terrifyingly high number of people in real life who really do think that the goal of the lockdowns is to eradicate the disease. And it's not surprising given the absolutely unclear and misleading messaging from our public health officials who appear to be more concerned with mass social control than with actual evidence-based public health policy. But now I'm ranting again...

[Hoasi]

> Surely our world will be forever marked by this event.

Yes, it will leave a mark during our lifetime, but that doesn't mean forever. People quickly forget about terrible events, which is a blessing and a curse. Nobody remembers that much about the Spanish flu, and yet it was one of the deadliest pandemics known to mankind. This pandemic is dramatic and unprecedented in our lifetime, yet nobody can tell how that will affect us in the long term.

There are vested interests to come back to normal as fast as possible. And there are also incentives to use this crisis to push all kinds of agendas. I'd be wary about predictions.

[umanwizard]

Some events permanently change the course of history, forever. Like the second world war, or the European discovery of America.

[raidicy]

I wonder if people in 1918 thought the same thing. And then the only impact the Spanish flu had on me was it was mentioned in passing in outdated middle school "social studies" books.

[BrainlingPdx]

That's not true at all. The Spanish flu outbreak had a ton of impact on the modern world. Health codes, science around vaccines, economic effects, etc. To act like the Spanish flu had no long lasting effects shows you didn't pay much attention in middle school social studies.

[raidicy]

I didn't. But it doesn't mean the books did it justice either. Anyway, I was trying to illustrate GP's point of getting back to normalcy, albeit vaguely.

[pstuart]

No need to be rude. You had a point and then sullied it.