Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by D13Fd 2166 days ago
There are two categories of ways this can resolve:

(1) We beat the coronavirus. People no longer regularly get infected.

(2) Coronavirus is here to stay. We'll all get it eventually just like we all eventually get colds and the flu.

I think it's pretty clear at this point that (1) isn't happening, at least absent a vaccine. If we do get a vaccine, it may be a polio/measles type situation where we can eliminate the disease, or it may be a flu-type situation where we all just get vaccinated every year.

So focusing on (2), where we all get the virus. We don't know the exact mortality rate for those infected. We don't know how the rate varies for re-infections.

We do know that the mortality rate is lower if the hospitals aren't full. So the shut downs may be logical in terms of keeping the infection rate low enough that the hospitals don't fill up, if we think it's worth it.

Whether the mortality rate benefits are worth the economic harms is another question, though.

1 comments

Shutdowns also give the virus more time and incentive to evolve into more contagious variants with much milder symptoms. If we delay it long enough it can actually end up just being like the seasonal flu.
I know nothing about this, but from what you're saying it sounds like the more contagious a virus is, the milder it's symptoms are? Is this usually true for all viruses or did I just misread your comment