Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by wiradikusuma 2136 days ago
But you know that you can be a carrier and infect less healthy people right?
2 comments

Asymptomatic transmission, while possible, is rare.

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-2671

"Of these 127 [COVID-19 cases], 8 (6.3% [CI, 2.1% to 10.5%]) were asymptomatic. Of the 119 symptomatic cases, 20 (16.8%) were defined as mild, 87 (73.1%) as moderate, and 12 (10.1%) as severe or critical."

6.3% of transmissions being asymptomatic doesn't sound rare to me.

Also, the 89.9% of people with mild or moderate cases may still not realize they have covid, and spread it.

It's also worth noting that there is confusion between "asymptomatic" and "pre-symptomatic". In the health industry apparently "asymptomatic" means you never present symptoms, however you can be "pre-symptomatic"(meaning you will present symptoms) and spread the disease as well. The media had been using "asymptomatic" to mean both, but then a study came out saying it was rare and blah blah blah.

Should I be surprised how many people on HN have resorted to conspiracy theories, accusations of malice, and discreditation over changing and mixed information? We live in a world of changing requirements but somehow changing recommendations based on new and changing information is all the evidence we need to indulge ourselves in confirmation bias?

If it was, we wouldn't be in this situation

(and the article doesn't say anything about asymptomatic transmission, only that 8% of secondary infected people were asymptomatic)

Then lets lockdown and force people who are less healthy to take all the steps to protect themselves, and leave alone the healty ones ?
Vulnerable people have needs that are supplied by the broader community (food, medicines, medical care, etc) so it's impossible to fully isolate vulnerable populations.
let's do like, china and directly deliver food to them. Every citizen of the us has been sent a 1200 check, US is able to fund a service like that also
$1200 check sent out like 4 months ago. That money is long gone.
How do you define 'less healthy' though?

In the UK the warning was BMI of over 35 needs to be careful, >40 needs to isolate. That would be a hell of a lot of americans. Plus the diabetics, heart issues, elderly etc.

Not as many as all of them, though.
I don't know what the ripple effect is. Might be very close (after all, less than half the americans do work).

And you don't need that many people to isolate for the house of cards to crumble. Plenty shops need to close because 30% fewer customers isn't enough to sustain them

So... segregation?

Something tells me that won't really fly

Having or being vulnerable to a virus isn't a protected class.
People with disabilities are in a protected class. Being immunocompromised qualifies as a disability.

Here's a brief definition, from a government site about equal employment:

https://www.eeoc.gov/disability-discrimination#definition

It doesn't seem like immunocompromise generally constitutes a disability by that definition, without satisfying some other criteria. But I'm not a lawyer, so what do I know.
The text of the law makes it more explicit: "[...] a major life activity also includes the operation of a major bodily function, including but not limited to, functions of the immune system [...]"

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/12102