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

(I'm no epidemiologist etc.)

Because that's a terrible idea that doesn't make any sense. I understand the logic and why it's tempting, and I've even read some of the evidence supposedly backing it up. I find it thoroughly unconvincing.

I won't address the moral side, just the practical.

The virus disproportionately effects the elderly, yes, but far from exclusively. We have seen the non-elderly death rates with distancing in effect. If we could confidently say that >70% of the non-elderly population already had the virus, then this might make some sense. But since at the moment we cannot say that, then this is a method for quickly getting to >90% of the population, and killing off an unknown but far from trivial percentage of us.

Also, I have seen some evidence that the magnitude of symptoms is partly dependent on the degree of exposure. If that is the case, I really really do not want to be sitting between two infectious people in a movie theater or sports arena. But this would be commonplace with the whole "let's just sacrifice the elderly" approach.




The idea would be to isolate the vulnerable and let everyone else get it.

As a society we have shown time and time again that we only care about "disasters", not the continuous but far greater and less expensively solved losses. Nuclear power vs coal, air plane accidents vs car accidents, the life expectancy reduction of poverty vs COVID-19...




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

Search: