Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> People with antibodies in their system should be allowed in everywhere without quarantine.

Creates pretty bad incentives if implemented (people will seek out the virus). Also relies on accuracy of individualized antibody tests.




If you're young and healthy, it may make complete sense to get the virus is a controlled manner with low viral load. I'd likely sign up to do this. Immunity is not proven, but its highly probable at least for a while. It would be nice to not constantly question whether or not I'm asymptomatically infectious and a threat to those around me.

infection passports are problematic because these incentives crop up for people who are actually at notable risk but either need the economic livelihood or just don't believe the facts around the virus


Does it though? Chicken pox parties are still common. With literally millions of people in risk of dying and the apparent years until we’ll get to a vaccine, is it really that crazy to just spend two months intentionally infecting all low risk people to build up herd immunity?

I know it’s unconventional but this is not a normal situation. If it was done in an orderly and controlled fashion, possibly even incorporating vaccine testing, this had the greatest odds of actually fixing the problem as a whole.


It's not a cake walk illness for many that get it. The things I read seem to assume that you're completely fine if you aren't on death's door. But many of the first hand accounts from people that got it (and didn't go to the hospital) is the you absolutely do not want it.

I'm going to err on the side of not getting it if given a choice.


Sure, and I think everyone's on the same page that you should be free to do that. The question is how the rest of us can best get back to a (mostly) normal life.


Just to be really clear, you're free to do what you want. And I don't care what you do.

What I don't feel is correct is to institute policy based on things that the CDC says are not effective enough to determine policy. Or to support intentional infection based on not understanding the illness well enough. The reason I don't support that is not because I care about what the people forcing infection do to themselves, but what they do to the people that need to support them (hospitals, going out when ill and infecting others who didn't sign up for that, etc).


That makes sense to me. I certainly agree that we shouldn't institute ineffective policy that won't accomplish our goals, and I share the CDC's skepticism of immunity passports.


I’d rather get it intentionally and have a rough month than kill my parents. It’s not about the healthy ones like us.


I'm not convinced that it would actually help that? What % of the population needs it to gain herd immunity? Will older people chip in to contribute or only younger people? What risk is there to younger people in general? We already know there are long lasting effects possible and deaths are still possible.


The percentage needed for herd immunity is waaaaay less than the low risk population. And using intentional exposure combined with vaccine testing will bring us to a successful vaccine much faster.

This isn’t about perfection. Millions of people will die. We need an answer now. Not in years.


Chickenpox has a vaccine and long term consequences... nobody should be doing chicken pox parties


I know. I probably should have said “were” as they are much less common now due to the vaccine. The point was that they were safer than not getting it later in life before we had a vaccine. My mistake in wording that.


Chicken pox partiers don't harm others who vaccinate or are covered by herd immunity.




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: