Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by bluetwo 2212 days ago
Semi-related: Thinking about this era I wondered how long it look for AIDS to kill 100,000 Americans. The answer is about 5 years. CoViD did it in 5 months.
8 comments

Yet we still have biology teachers the school I work at asking why we shut down for Corona/Covid and not HIV/Aids. He's a fucking biology teacher, and he refuses to see the difference because he wants his precious soccer team to play this year. It's so damn frustrating, especially knowing that nothing will happen to him because he's a coach.
Now do the comparison with the 1950/51 Asian flu pandemic, and ask the same question.

It's an area under the graph thing.

I'm not sure that's a useful comparison. Without treatment, HIV takes an average of 8–10 years to kill a person, but it has a >90% fatality rate.

You are comparing a sprinter to a marathon runner. It's hard to do the comparison justice using just one statistic.

It's disturbing that we are being told to learn to live with the virus when there is such a high risk of contraction.
High risk but most infected have close to no symptoms which is nothing like AIDS which used to be a death sentence.
But even a tiny mortality rate is catastrophic when talking about city and country sized populations. The lockdowns happened for a reason, because this disease overwhelms public health.
And if enough people start dying the disease overwhelms public everything.

In the UK, some schools are refusing to reopen and some people are refusing to return to work in spite of government orders.

Indeed, mass panic is an under appreciated risk in the discourse in some countries. We may have the misfortune of discovering just what that looks like in the coming months.
> most infected have close to no symptoms

Only most of recently infected have no symptoms, whereas most of infected do develop symptoms, but typically after they already transmitted the illness to other people. According to what it is currently known, from all infected around 80% do eventually develop some symptoms, up to 10% need hospital, up to 5% need intensive care and around 1% of all infected eventually die. That is when observed across all age groups, among the older it's much worse.

And as soon as the health system can't cope the percentages of dead increase rapidly to even higher values -- i.e. those that need hospital need it because half of them will need intensive care (and nobody knows before it's critical who), those that need intensive care need it because most of them will need oxygen in some form and half of these will need:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tracheal_intubation

That's why it's undesired to have non-functioning health system, and to avoid overwhelming the existing health systems.

That's not accurate. "mild cases" is not the same as "no symptoms".
Read again: "close to no symptoms"
Insofar as you are being told this, the reason you are being told is the high risk of contraction.
As opposed to what exactly?
Which doesn't really mean that HIV/AIDS is not dangerous, but rather it underscores how much more dangerous CoViD really is.

I truly hope we manage a better response than the AIDS crisis, because a similar response to COVID-19 would be incredibly devastating.

I wonder what HIV would have done if it hit before mass adoption of protective equipment for sex. I think it could have brought civilization to it's knees.
Maybe?

I’m not sure that prophylactics really would be the deciding factor. Condoms are older than you might think, but on the other hand usage rates are still relatively low.

And humanity keeps bouncing back from things: for example, the plague (multiple times!)

I think the relatively long incubation time is probably what would have made it especially bad if it had taken hold earlier - say, in the 1800s when our understanding would have been limited and our ability to track it worse. It might have been much, much worse then.

Not really because penis / vaginal sex still had a low risk of transmission.

That's why it erupted in the gay community first.

Before mass adoption of protective equipment for sex people had the social technology to deal with it: monogamy.
Alas, people have been promiscuous for all eternity. Even “monogamous” people cheat.
AIDS killed healthy young men. The same is not true of COVID.
I wouldn’t compare those two viruses directly. HIV is sexually transmitted, whereas COVID is spread through exhaled water droplets.

Think about how often the average person has sex vs how often they’re around tons of strangers who are exhaling, coughing, etc.

Not to mention it takes quite some time for someone to die from an opportunistic infection as a result of being immunocompromised from AIDS.

Or put it like this.

In NY alone there have been 23K deaths due to covid 19.

911 had about 3K dead.

This was over 7 911 events in a matter of 3 months.

Nationally it's about 33 911s in 3 months.

It's like five jetliner crashes every day for the last three months.
Air-travel is so safe, yet humans insist on being completely paranoid about it.
I read an editorial in the Wall Street Journal that was bitching that the government was spending way too much money on AID's research instead of important things like heart disease.

I read that, looked at their statistics and backed out an estimate of number of years of life lost for AID and Heart disease. And yeah AID's was a really big deal unless you were a sociopathic old white male editor at the WSJ.

Reading what the Wall Street Journal thinks about SARS-COV2 shows they haven't changed a bit in 35 years.