23Mar: Sorry for doing this, but I found errors, & can’t stand to let them stand, so I’ve edited this substantially to fix them. The more features one adds to a sim, the more chances for bugs! In my previous
I'm pretty aware that RobinHanson didn't include any economic aspects in the model (which, BTW, is even a PLUS in support of the "deliberate exposure" strategy) but, due to the huge economic impacts of lockdown measures, I guess no one can consider the 18 months period (the most frequent estimate for a vaccine) as anything "near-term". Even 12 months are not near enough for businesses and workers.
But if one could get all of them infected at the same time, it would be enough to have it 14 days before Spring Break, and still let them go...and even return to finish term at faculty!
Or more generally, a schedule of loads tuned and perhaps dynamically adjusted to minimize expected permanent damage to health on the path to greater (ideally total?) immunity.
The above strategy necessarily includes tracking vaccine development, as it presumably becomes unwise to deliberately expose oneself to live virus if a safe vaccine becomes sufficiently (likely and imminent).
That sort of policy can give more infection of the young, but not necessarily more isolation of them once infected.
The usual belief is that higher initial viral loads cause more problems, eg. death. An advantage of deliberate infection is that one could choose a small load, to get lower mortality. I didn't include that effect in the model above.
Most discussion here treats exposure as a binary event. I am instead wondering whether it should be analyzed as an expected viral load as a function of time. E.g. what is known in general about a graduated-exposure approach to the development of personal viral immunity?
One palatable way to do this in Spain and Greece would be to lockdown everything except in Mykonos and Ibiza. Anecdotal evidence from living in Spain suggests young folks would flock there even near the peak.
There's always the ability to opt out, so it seems like not a long term issue.
As you can see in later posts I switched to the term "deliberate exposure". I'm wary of terms that are not immediately understandable - you just delay the reaction until they figure out what you are talking about.
Can you get the coronavirus twice? Maybe - but according to some scientists, unlikely.
Prof Jon Cohen, emeritus professor of infectious diseases at Brighton and Sussex Medical School, said: “The answer is that we simply don’t know [about reinfection] yet because we don’t have an antibody test for the infection, although we will have soon.“However, it is very likely, based on other viral infections, that yes, once a person has had the infection they will generally be immune and won’t get it again. There will always be the odd exception, but that is certainly a reasonable expectation.”
I've had trouble with seeming disgust responses to 'controlled infection' - perhaps something like 'artificially inducing immunity' people may find more palatable.
No money will be needed! People will volunteer to be infected so that they will no longer have to 'social isolate".
This is giving me flashbacks of the Deep Space 9 episode "Statistical Probabilities."
Has he ever been on Bloggingheads? I know that you've done that in the past, as has Greg Cochran, who helped develop "new germ theory" with Paul Ewald a while back. He's been blogging about the coronavirus lately and has done some podcasts with the economist James Miller, who has also never been on BHTV. Looking at the front page now, I see that Glenn Loury has some diavlogs on the subject.
What sort of interaction do you have in mind?
It would be great to see an interaction between you and Kevin Simler from Melting Asfalt. https://www.meltingasphalt....