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

Always a concern, but under the present circumstances, a false positive (someone quarantines for two weeks who doesn't need it) is far better than a false negative (someone has false confidence in attending public places).

Unlike other false positives that could lead to unneeded/harmful interventions (surgery, chemo), erring on the side of false positives would actually be desirable for COVID-19.




I’d rather not be quarantined with a bunch of sick people for two weeks if I’m not actually sick. The risk of me getting the virus is much higher there than among the general populace. So I disagree that there are no downsides or risks for a false positive here. Especially as the disease has a chance to kill me.


Self-quarantine means they send you home and tell you not to leave for 2 weeks.

Unless you are in such an extreme case that you need a respirator or something, in which case they will hospitalize you and you might be around other diseased victims, but if you are in that condition then it is probably not a false positive. There is a shortage of hospital beds worldwide right now, so they are sending everyone home unless hospitalization is considered life-saving.


You quarantine at home.


All the restaurants and bars of California and New York are closing or are closed and all the people that work there are hourly wage. How how long do you think they will still have homes? Not trying to be alarmist but I also don’t see how people making an hourly wage are going to continue living in their very expensive states without income.


Unless the government backstops it, they won't. It is and will be a huge problem.

Some states are banning evictions for a few months, so at least there is that option. But it just means they'll be homeless in June instead of April.


Most NYC landlords have agreed to a 90-day hold on all evictions. So... about 90 days I guess.




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

Search: