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

The snark is unwarranted, because there's actually a huge benefit to reducing your ability to be infectious to the people around you.

It allows you to live your life without social distancing and without any risk to people you engage with.




But to do that you first have to become infectious, right? I'm no longer being snarky, I'm curious what I'm missing in the thought process.


Nobody, in this comment chain, made the claim that one should intentionally get infected (I don't think, unless I'm missing something implied).

It's inevitable that at least some portion of the population is going to be infected, intentional or not. We wouldn't exactly be in a pandemic otherwise. And it's certainly not some new found knowledge that coming into contact with germs/diseases leads to an immune response to better respond to future infection.

Instead of looking at it as "Why should I intentionally get infected to avoid being infected", maybe try looking at it through the lens of "I've already been infected, how does that change my risk analysis?".


I personally know people who's calculus on this is literally "I am going to catch covid explicitly so that I can build immunity to covid." These people are idiots. I probably was too hasty assuming everyone in the comment chain was of this mindset before giving them an chance to make whatever potentially rational case they planned on making.

I think they key point of any risk analysis should be that "I can spread Covid even if I'm unaware that I have it". We know that if you have caught Covid once, you can catch it again. We also know that while some people do gain some longer-term immunity to Covid, many don't. There's no way to practically tell if you have that immunity or not. So, based on the fact that you can assume that you'll catch Covid for a 2+ time at any time, and will spread it before you know you have it, the math points to trying to not catch it.

And with that, if you have not caught it once you should really really be trying to not catch it for all the same reasons.

This is assuming you care about reducing spread, of course. If you don't care about reducing spread I can't really debate with you because our moral frameworks are so far removed from one another that there's no sort of argument one can make that will sway the other.


Sure, so you become infectious and quarantine for 10 days (at a time you can test and control), and then don't have to worry about it in the future. Removes a burden going forward.


You can catch it more than once and you are contagious before you’d reasonably have the knowledge to test. Now you’ve spread it when you didn’t have to.




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

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

Search: