How should the world react to a new virus. Lets make this one a nightmare scenario, in the beginning we assume it is like a new COVID, but it quickly becomes apparent that the death rate rather than being in below 1%, is in the high teens 16-18%.

The virus is given a small chance to spread before global lockdowns are imposed and a few 10's of thousands die. After a bit of number crunching, we find that a specific group is far more susceptible to catching and spreading but are almost unaffected by it; conversely for everyone else the opposite is true; they are ineffective spreaders but are sickened by it easily.

Lets assume the spreaders are a significant group, the left handed only because they are everywhere in all walks of life and every country.

How do we handle this situation?

Note: according to this the best estimate of global left handedness is 10.6%

[–] Dave 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I think the case of another COVID is just as interesting. After years of lockdowns, health measures, and protests, I think if another COVID came up then probably we (as a planet) will just let people die. I think we (as a country) would just recommend masks and otherwise change nothing, and even if we had a different government I don't think we would do lockdowns again - I don't think people would accept it as easily as the first time, we saw this in the later lockdowns with people just being over it.

For your scenario, I would wonder how long it would take us to work out it's left-handed people. If the majority are spreaders but unaffected, looking at the way COVID spread around the world in a short amount of time, I think what would happen is 16-18% of all left-handed people would die and hopefully they can't catch the virus twice because if they can then I think the end result is no left-handed people.

COVID is hugely contagious, and if the people spreading don't know they are sick then it's probably not practical to do anything to stop it. I think most people would have the virus before RAT tests are developed and enough are manufactured, and PCR tests on a daily basis for the entire population (because most people have no symptoms) would not be feasible.

To sum up, I think the outcome is that left handed people would be screwed.

[–] absGeekNZ 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

I think what would happen is 16-18% of all left-handed people would die and hopefully they can’t catch the virus twice because if they can then I think the end result is no left-handed people.

In the scenario the LH people are almost unaffected, it is the rest of the population that has the high death rate. If we assume LH death rate is in the 1 in 100,000 range (0.001%) and RH death rate is 16-18%.

I think what would happen is lockdowns; initially and then internment camps for LH people. Because RH people don't spread it easily; without the LH people spreading the virus, it would die out in the rest of the population.

[–] Dave 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Oh I misunderstood. I thought the scenario was most people are infecters and a small number as susceptible, if that's reversed that changes things a lot, or at least a bit.

I disagree about lockdowns and internment, though. If approx 10% of people are lefthanded (says wikipedia) then this is still a very large group of people spreading it.

Firstly, unless the assumption is that we already know it's left-handed people spreading it, I think we will see a lot of other patterns and take many months to decide it's definitely the handedness thing. This is especially true if a small number of right-handed people people are catching it. So I think any initial action will not involve this categorisation.

Given lockdown fatigue, and the global swing towards right wing parties (parties of "personal responsibility") then I don't think we will see any mandatory enforcements at all. Probably in NZ just a recommendation to mask up and work from home if possible.

From a political and civil stability point of view, I don't believe any government will get support from the population to lock up 10% of the population. You'll have all the 10% against it, all the people that believe it's illegal or immoral, all the people that don't believe in the virus, all the people that just don't think the government should be stepping in.

Probably some countries will try it, some will have more things they will try, and there will be a lot of discussion about what is or isn't acceptable. But in NZ I can't imagine the government taking too many measures. We would probably see the health system smashed, but if the virus works quickly then we might just put sick people in a ward together and just wait for them to recover/die because we wouldn't have the staff to treat everyone.

[–] absGeekNZ 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I think that the time delay between infection and symptoms/death is what would drive the most decisions.

If the time delay between infection and death is short ~1 week; then the lockdown/internment scenario is likely. If however the time delay is long ~3 months or so, then we would be looking at different outcome and the time delay would complicate things hugely, but give us time to react.

The rate of transmission would weigh heavily on decisions also. If we assume a high transmission rate (R0 > 2) with a short time between infection and infectiousness; there would be little we could do to slow the transmission.

As for the appetite for lockdown; if 1 in 6 people were dying; the bodies would quickly pile up and something would break. With the eventual death toll of 830k - 930k just in NZ; society would fracture quite quickly. We couldn't handle that kind of volume; mass graves would be needed.

[–] Dave 4 points 11 months ago

Yeah you make some good points. It it was as contagious as COVID but killed 16-18% then that's probably going to be tough for any government to ignore.

It would also depend on how long people stayed infectious. If there wasn't this separation of handedness, I'd point out that a disease with a kill rate of 16-18% would not spread well (assuming a short period until death). Viruses that kill too fast have trouble spreading. Adding in the relatively large group of people that spread without dying means the virus can spread dispite the high kill rate, so that addition changes this from a localised concern for the country of origin to a worldwide disaster!