Your ‘Zvi’ doesn’t make sense: if we know it works, everyone should get a low dose ASAP. But we don’t know it works. I favor Hanson’s approach to discover how well it works, and then reevaluate.
I think Zvi’s thinking was based on some observations that seem to be present. It may be that the first person to get sick tends to get a milder cases but others in that household tend to get more sever cases. I believe the argument is that the first person will likely get it from “the wild” more as a one time infection and probably a light load infection.
In the house the others are repeatedly exposed as it is a contaminated environment, much closer quarters and so the total exposure a higher load.
If we infect everyone then those most at risk will both deal with their initial infection and perhaps repeated exposure that may make their infection worse—their immune system could deal with the light load initially and if no further exposure they would likely be fine. But if they are in an environment where they continue to be exposed to new viral intake that might be more problematic.
If virus exposure mid-illness worsens your symptoms, doesn’t that mean being indoors is harmful? it would be far healthier to spend as much time outdoors as possible? Perhaps on a net hammock if you have to lie down, so your face isn’t lying on a cloth full of the virus you’re exhaling? Surely this effect would be so large that clinical studies would have noticed by now, people recovering much faster when they’re not in a hospital room, or in a room at all.
On a gears-level, it seems like illness severity would be heavily dose-dependent until the virus replication rate has outpaced the amount you could reasonably inhale.
If so, if you have a specific event that you’re concerned may have exposed you, it might be worthwhile to sleep outside for a few nights, weather permitting.
Your ‘Zvi’ doesn’t make sense: if we know it works, everyone should get a low dose ASAP. But we don’t know it works. I favor Hanson’s approach to discover how well it works, and then reevaluate.
I think Zvi’s thinking was based on some observations that seem to be present. It may be that the first person to get sick tends to get a milder cases but others in that household tend to get more sever cases. I believe the argument is that the first person will likely get it from “the wild” more as a one time infection and probably a light load infection.
In the house the others are repeatedly exposed as it is a contaminated environment, much closer quarters and so the total exposure a higher load.
If we infect everyone then those most at risk will both deal with their initial infection and perhaps repeated exposure that may make their infection worse—their immune system could deal with the light load initially and if no further exposure they would likely be fine. But if they are in an environment where they continue to be exposed to new viral intake that might be more problematic.
If virus exposure mid-illness worsens your symptoms, doesn’t that mean being indoors is harmful? it would be far healthier to spend as much time outdoors as possible? Perhaps on a net hammock if you have to lie down, so your face isn’t lying on a cloth full of the virus you’re exhaling? Surely this effect would be so large that clinical studies would have noticed by now, people recovering much faster when they’re not in a hospital room, or in a room at all.
On a gears-level, it seems like illness severity would be heavily dose-dependent until the virus replication rate has outpaced the amount you could reasonably inhale.
If so, if you have a specific event that you’re concerned may have exposed you, it might be worthwhile to sleep outside for a few nights, weather permitting.