Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by BillyTheKing 2006 days ago
These are incredibly general statements. Obviously we'd all love it if our infection numbers were lower, so what? If achieving low infection rates would be simple we'd all be doing it, it's just that it's not.

I feel there's also some weird fallacy in this, the authors say infection numbers need to stay low in order to make contact-tracing work. That's what we did all summer, but then all of the sudden, infection rates exploded. Which, to me, sounds like contact-tracing alone doesn't really solve our problem here it's not this magic bullet that once you reach a certain threshold you're good to go. The other thing being masks. I've personally seen very strong adherence to mask-wearing in public throughout Europe in summer and autumn - again that, too, did not prevent this wave from happening. One cannot help but wonder how much those masks really help (especially the cloth types, proper ones probably help better).

I feel many virologists and epidemiologists are trapped in this spring 2020 way of thinking, they focus on masks and lockdowns - instead we need to start focusing more on super-spreader events, centralised quarantines, intelligent mass-antigen testing, technology-facilitated tracing, and active protection of the vulnerable with proper face-masks (Germany distributed them just this week...) and mass-screening.

We've also completely thrown over board many of our learnings from the aids epidemic - you won't defeat aids by banning sex. It just won't work... It's incredibly difficult, expensive and probably impossible in the long-run to control and ban these aspects of human life, just like banning small human gatherings is - we're social beings after all. The only way is public education that builds up individual responsibility (start using condoms, etc.)

2 comments

When you lack resources, you're much better off taking an extreme approach early on to stop the spread and then following up with the points you mentioned to contain future outbreaks.

Contact tracing only works if you have enough people to do it. We've had four? contact incidents in my family so far, two that have lead to mandatory quarantines. We were only contacted once by local authorities, after an infection spread shut down most of my son's day care center. We were contacted days after everyone already knew what had happened and started to self quarantine, and, honestly, had it not happened at a day care, we likely wouldn't have been contacted at all.

Mandatory masks also aren't guaranteed to be effective. We had several people where I work get infected, even though they were (from what is being said), following appropriate measures.

How effective are the apps for contact tracing?

Getting people to use them is work but there should be a huge savings in human effort.

From a quick look at what's been published so far, they appear to be very effective if they have a high enough adoption rate and if people self quarantine after contact.

This is ancedotal, but the benefit of having a live person, working in an official capacity, doing the contact tracing, is that it gives definitive weight to the decision to quarantine and get tested.

The “fallacy” is the notion patently obvious to some; that people care about lives that are probabilistically lost that can be saved by artificial interventions.

People don’t care! They rather die in the hands of gods. Unbelievable but probably that’s the case.

yes, humans are traditionally bad at estimating opportunity costs of actions (or lack of actions)