Italy is extending its coronavirus quarantine measures to the entire country - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-51810673 <comment><USER2> This is an account from one of the doctors in Italy. [https://twitter.com/jasonvanschoor/status/123714289107769753...](https://twitter.com/jasonvanschoor/status/1237142891077697538?s=19)

Read the whole thing, but this passage in particular is just chilling.

"5/ Patients above 65 or younger with comorbidities are not even assessed by ITU, I am not saying not tubed, I'm saying not assessed and no ITU staff attends when they arrest. Staff are working as much as they can but they are starting to get sick and are emotionally overwhelmed."

<comment><USER3> I am a Chinese living in Bay Area. What's described by the Italian doctor was exactly like the situation in Wuhan right after the lockdown for the first 2-3 weeks. Unfortunately, I think it will hit Italy harder this time, China locked down Wuhan but every other provinces send in supplies and doctors to help, just building new hospitals is not enough, and I don't see France/Germany doing the same to Italy. The US response so far feels very much like what I saw early Jan in China, the government kept assuring the public everything is in control and risk is very low. One could argue it's either cover up or they simply didn't know, I think it's a combination of both. But I really cannot understand why US is handling it this way after seeing what happened in Wuhan and now Italy, it almost feels like Trump has some secret weapons ready to save the day. You would think that, since most of the leaders are in a high risk demographic and spend large chunk of their time shaking hands with strangers, they would be more vigilant

<comment><USER4> I am extremely disappointed in the American government on this. We have had a significant warning and we've seen the virus in multiple countries and the response has been so lackluster.

Why should we wait 20 days for things to get terrible before going to quarantines and lock down? Surely China and Italy have shown us our future.

I partly think the problem is political. If you quarantine and the virus is controlled, then it looks like you panicked over nothing, because you took this huge reaction and nothing much happened. However, if you wait till it's sufficiently bad and then you quarantine everyone will understand what you did, and later, you may get praised for your decisive leadership in a time of struggle.

What I mostly wish is that citizens could throw some sort of flag now to say "This crisis is being poorly handled. If this goes badly, let's have a review, figure out why, and correct the problem once this is settled."

<comment><USER5> > If you quarantine and the virus is controlled, then it looks like you > panicked over nothing, because you took this huge reaction and nothing much > happened.

Nails it. You could be so good at your job that people think your job isn't even necessary; or you could be putting out fires caused by your incompetence all day every day and people think you're a hero.

<comment><USER6> Trump isn't looking like a hero.

<comment><USER7> He is to his base. For now.

His base is, however, going to be disproportionately impacted by this virus.

<comment><USER8> Why would you think that? The virus is going to hit way harder in dense cities than in rural areas, and cities heavily lean towards the left

<comment><USER6> It's most deadly to older people.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I was not very surprised that Italy turned out to be the (first?) major hit in Europe. Considering the strong business connections, it had to be either us or Germany.

We are, as much of the world, importers from China, but many enterprises here are also, somewhat, strong exporters to China (I can see it from my dayjob as industrial automation SI), and if you factor in the small average size of Italian companies requiring many individual contacts (contrast with Germany where companies on average are bigger), you can imagine that there is a strong flow of people to and fro. Maybe the small size of companies requiring more people to establish commercial links + population being more uniformly settled across the country (no huge wildland or sparsely inhabited area left in Po Valley, except maybe some parts of Piedmont?) + a certain cultural inclination for useless quarreling hindering political action + inefficiencies in the administration + an unsolved conflict of power between central gov't and periphery possibly causing some waste of time in other quarreling + having to keep the vast group of small business owners somewhat quiet has resulted in a vast spreading of the virus.

The interesting thing is that, if you replace China with Germany in the paragraph above (wrt. the possible German origin of the outbreak in Italy), the consideration about business links would still apply.

Another interesting thing I have just noticed is that some journalists are now openly praising the Chinese handling of the crisis. Maybe this may sound strange to an American :D but there has been for some time a growing cross- partisan movement calling for stronger links to China. In fact this movement is somewhat present in European business community, so it is not so special to Italy, but nonetheless it is interesting to see these comments of open praise.

<comment><USER10> > Another interesting thing I have just noticed is that some journalists are > now openly praising the Chinese handling of the crisis.

I think this is a very interesting effect. China has a fantastic ability to mobilize as one when needed. The vast majority of the time, the insane amount of control this requires, is something we're simply not comfortable with giving to governments. But sometimes, just sometimes, the results are worth it.

The closest equivalence I could think of that'd be familiar to American ears, would be the WW2 war effort. It's not how most of us would want a country run day-to-day, but the ability to do so when needed is incredibly powerful.

Pumping a hospital out in a week or a battleship out in a month aren't dissimilar in national focus. And they're both achievements. What makes China feel alien to us is that this is their default stance.

(And that said, there's plenty to be critical of in the earlier days of China's response. But in the interest of sharing data and research, we're catching more flies with honey.)

<comment><USER11> >What makes China feel alien to us is that this is their default stance.

Isn't having a massive military Americas default stance as well?

<comment><USER12> Parent's comment had nothing to do with military, but with an authoritarian executive's power to unilaterally get things done quickly, if they so desire.

The US was sometimes able to mobilize quickly in response to extraordinary circumstances (WWII production being an example), but that isn't really our default state, and requires consensus-building rather than orders from on high. But sadly our ability to do so even in extraordinary circumstances has atrophied.

<comment><USER13> It's perhaps worth noting that even in the U.S., these wartime mobilizations have often been carried out by comparatively authoritarian governments (especially in comparison to peacetime U.S. government), e.g. the suspension of habeas corpus and mass arrests during the U.S. Civil War, German internment and the Espionage and Sedition Acts of World War 1, and mass Japanese internment camps and the Office of Censorship during World War 2.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Italy is a country of 60M+ people and the 8th largest economy in the world, with a very high national debt and that significantly relies on tourism for its economy. Above and beyond the Coronavirus, this can terribly affect the long-term solvency of the country.

<comment><USER15> I hope (and suspect) that the ECB (and Europe as a whole) will financially stand behind Italy, no questions asked (I'm a fellow European).

<comment><USER16> You seem to forget that the ECB is there for the banks, not for the people or their countries.

<comment><USER17> You seem to forget that [ insert deeply ideological sloganeering / extremely arguable value judgment ].

<comment><USER18> I wish everyone was addressing trolling face on, like you. Thank you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> The US really really /really/ needs to get out in front of this. We have the lowest per-capita testing rate in the world, there are likely already significant outbreaks in Seattle, Santa Clara co, NYC, and DC. Probably elsewhere. We are literally like 12 days behind and can see into our future.

If this virus does indeed require such intense hospital resources (as in Wuhan and now Northern Italy) letting it spike is just madness. Must put into place heavy restrictions now.

We don't need travel lockdowns, but public events, movie theatres, etc should be closed, and businesses should be highly urged to allow workers to WFH if nec and/or try furloughs with public money (ha! good luck...)

In any case, just waiting until we see a spike in cases and then trying to get behind it seems like so much madness.

Large sports events? Museums? _sigh_

<comment><USER20> We have the lowest testing rate because the CDC made some big mistakes early on.

1) the CDC told all the other labs to stand down and wait for the CDC test kit

2) the CDC refused permission to test except under very narrow conditions

3) the CDC test kit was defective due to being over engineered, and delayed availability during a very critical period

Now that we're behind the exponential growth curve, any measures that politicians can take are going to be much less effective.

[https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/after-missteps- cd...](https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/after-missteps-cdc-says-its- coronavirus-test-kit-ready-primetime-n1145206)

<comment><USER21> Which of those would you have cited if you didn't have the benefit of hindsight?

<comment><USER20> KISS (keep it simple, stupid)

Why did CDC depart from this and make a 3 part test (1 part of which had nothing to do with this virus) when there was already tests available they could just copy?

During an emergency, you don't screw around and try to come up with the perfect test. You don't exercise turf rights over other concerns.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Tocilizumab drug in Naples hospital seems promising: «The health of the patient suffering from covid 19, who arrived in critical condition, intubated and treated with the new drug therapy is recovering. Maybe we extubate him because his conditions have improved a lot ». They also say they got confirmation from Chinese colleagues who tested that earlier on 21 cases. The drug is now undergoing trial at Roche.

[https://www.corriere.it/video-articoli/2020/03/09/dopo- cina-...](https://www.corriere.it/video-articoli/2020/03/09/dopo-cina-anche- italia-test-un-farmaco-casi-gravi-ecco- risultati/9405aebc-622a-11ea-9897-5c6f48cf812d.shtml)

<comment><USER23> I'm incredibly ignorant, can someone explain why a drug used to treat arthritis might work against a Coronavirus? I just don't understand the connection/interaction, or why this was even tried originally?

Genuinely looking to learn.

<comment><USER24> One of the ways the virus kills the patient is causing a cytokine storm [0][1]. And tocilizumab suppresses one of the cytokines in humans [2].

0: [https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/02/here- is-w...](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/02/here-is-what- coronavirus-does-to-the-body/) 1: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cytokine_release_syndrome](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cytokine_release_syndrome) 2: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tocilizumab](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tocilizumab)

<comment><USER25> "It might be a cytokine storm".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> The Italian Department of Civil Protection is now publishing detailed confirmed case statistics on GitHub. I just finished throwing together a little animated map of of how it's been spreading across provinces:

[https://observablehq.com/@jashkenas/italy-coronavirus- daily-...](https://observablehq.com/@jashkenas/italy-coronavirus-daily-cases- map-covid-19)

<comment><USER27> Super interesting. For once it doesn't look like a population density map.

<comment><USER28> I suspect if you laid transportation networks and commerce centers over the data there would be some alignment.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Just spoken to an Italian friend, apparently they got a few hours notice before this was enforced (much more kept under-wraps than the previous quarantine of Northern Italy).

Expect other Western European Countries to follow this pattern as the number of cases increase [1]. I would specifically be looking at France, Spain and Germany as potential next candidates.

If people here haven't already, I would recommend not leaving your shopping to the last minute and to stock up on a few extra supplies to help not exhaust the local food-chain when people do start panic buying.

[1] [https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries](https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries)

<comment><USER30> People in the UK have already been panic buying, mostly pasta and toilet roll AFAICT

<comment><USER31> The toilet roll thing seems to be everywhere (Germany is full of "why toilet paper!" outrage as well), but do people really panic buy so much? Toilet paper is an item you buy once every few weeks or months, depending on household size, it's very high volume per unit of money so shops stock just enough to satisfy an even random distribution of individual buying times. Now if all of a sudden, triggered by news, a considerable number of the people who would otherwise be in the market for a fresh pack sometime in the next few weeks decide to stock up a bit earlier there will inevitably be a brief but highly visible local shortage everywhere. Stocking up a bit earlier is far from panic buying, but due to the low price per volume of this specific product the result (empty shelves) will easily give that impression. This might admittedly trigger some second order panic buying effects, but that's not the effect of a coming virus, is the effect of people setting empty shelves.

I believe that the world is mocking a phantom.

<comment><USER32> Seeing the same thing happen across different cultures over very different kinds of crises I came to the conclusion that this has to be a Freudian slip of the fact that people subconsciously care more about being able to keep their rear end tidy than eating.

<comment><USER33> well the other reason is that if you bulk buy things like milk and bread it will be gone off within a week

<comment><USER34> The box milk you buy in Europe can keep about a year when unopened. That stems from a combination of aseptic packaging and UHT pasteurization. I just peeked at a few containers in my house and they have expiration dates around early July.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I am living in Italy (not in the zones where the virus starts spreading) and I want to say that our healthcare system is still working even if it's struggling. The big problem is that the number of places for critical care is going to saturate; they are starting moving sick persons from Lombardia to other regions in order to reduce pressure on the critical care hospitals departments. The number of death is so high because they count person who had other illness (cancer, heart disease, etc) and because we have lot of elder persons (the probability of dying is higher for over 75).

I just hope that other government in Europe will take it seriously, because it seems spreading fast over France, Germany, Spain and Netherlands.

<comment><USER36> > The number of death is so high because they count person who had other > illness (cancer, heart disease, etc) and because we have lot of elder > persons (the probability of dying is higher for over 75).

I don't know how the count is made, but since the pressure will affect the care for the other patients as well, it makes sense to at least take them in consideration in the stats.

<comment><USER35> Yes, it make sense. The strange value is the one from Germany with more than 1000 cases and only 2 died. I suspect that the criteria for counting the death is not the same across different EU countries.

<comment><USER37> and information hiding (to preserve Economy or to avoid Panic) plays a role here

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Official GitHub repository for COVID-19 data in Italy: [https://github.com/pcm-dpc/COVID-19](https://github.com/pcm-dpc/COVID-19)

</comment><comment><USER39> I'm curious, do we have good data on typical influenza infection rates per month, and if so, are we seeing a sooner than expected drop in influenza transmissions? I figure it would be a good gauge of how well people are adopting safer hygiene protocols.

<comment><USER40> This has been seen in Hong Kong already. It's been noted that residents there were very receptive to social distancing measures due to their experience with SARS in 2003.

 _Data provided by the government's Centre for Health Protection show the incidence of infection with influenza had fallen to less than 1 per cent by the end of February, marking an end to the winter flu season, which normally extends to the end of March or into April._

...

 _Ho Pak-leung, a leading microbiologist at the University of Hong Kong, said data showed the flu season had shortened from an average of 98.7 days to 34 days this year._

[https://www.ft.com/content/ad7ae6b4-5eab-11ea-b0ab-339c2307b...](https://www.ft.com/content/ad7ae6b4-5eab-11ea-b0ab-339c2307bcd4)

* Twitter link to above to possibly bypass paywall: [https://twitter.com/Birdyword/status/1236491746541895685?s=2...](https://twitter.com/Birdyword/status/1236491746541895685?s=20)

<comment><USER41> "It's been noted that residents there were very receptive to social distancing measures due to their experience with SARS in 2003"

It's going to be interesting how society changes as a result of this, for those of us who live through it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> So this is awaiting all countries, in all likelihood? I mean what's the difference between Italy and Switzerland? Or Germany? Or the United States?

<comment><USER43> The united states is going to fare a lot worse. Their president is actively contradicting his own experts and essentially encouraging people to go on spreading the disease.

It's going to be a clusterfuck.

<comment><USER44> People in other countries put too much weight in what the president says, Trump or otherwise, because they don't fully understand that there is an entire system of government that can fully function with or without the president.

I won't go so far as to say that the position of the president is a figurehead, but it's been more than a little advisory for several generations.

I watch a lot of BBC, NHK, and DW, and see it all the time. I don't blame the foreign journalists. If you're an overseas news organization working in America, of course the president is going to be fully staffed. But few orgs go much beyond that. Because of this, the European view of how America works is very simplified.

<comment><USER45> _> there is an entire system of government that can fully function with or without the president._

Except when a major global catastrophe hits, like a pandemic, the response requires massive coordination across local, state, and federal levels. What he says now may not be so relevant but the president's lack of appoints to key executive branch positions within the CDC and the rest of the healthcare apparatus (including eliminating health related positions from the National Security Council, one of the most important multi-agency coordination bodies) has drastically hampered the COVID-19 response effort.

People from other countries more often tend to underestimate the sheer scale and complexity created by a local-state-federal separation of powers weighed down by over two hundred years of judicial baggage and thousands of miles of geography. In a crisis like this, even figuring out who has legal jurisdiction and authority is complicated. Doing it without an effective executive body, whose job is to navigate and command that mess, is far more difficult.

<comment><USER46> Just look at the testing for an example. There's absolutely no reason we couldn't be doing 10 times as many tests as we are; there's just nobody sitting at the top insisting that test capacity _must_ be available and demanding that everyone do what they can to make it happen.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> For anybody living in quarantined areas of Italy. How much has your daily life been affected?

<comment><USER48> I have been reviewing the situation with a colleague of mine, and we have now realized that the new measures are not enough. It makes no sense to allow burger king or any bar to stay open util 6 p.m. And it makes no sense to allow to go to work for any undeferrable (or also deferrable) reason. The only effective measure seems logically to be quarantine, and for me and my family (2+2), from tomorrow afternoon quarantine will be. The government will finally arrive to the same conclusion, but a later stage. At the moment they seem to be still trying to balance the counteracting of the epidemic and the economic damage, but to us that's not the correct thing to do.

<comment><USER49> The problem with this is that a 14 day total economic halt will be devastating. Even assuming all office workers work remote basic social structure will be endangered. The hospitals need to stay open, people need to keep operating water and electricity utilities, food distribution needs to continue as many do not have 14 days of stock at home.

It is not about those dams politician that only care about reelection numbers, it also about keeping the wheel of society turning.

To say nothing of how much total hysteria that would cause.

<comment><USER50> In China we have been on economic halt since late January. The hospitals stay open, utilities are running, food deliveries, all of that is still working. There is no shortage of food or other daily products.

What has changed is that almost everything is being delivered from online store or purchased from supermarket or pharmacy during restricted hours. Anybody who worked a pink collar job before has no job now. Anybody who owned a brick and mortar business before is hoping that the government grants will cover the rent and allow it to reopen if/when things finally go back to normal.

Lockdown like this is no doubt devastating to the economy. I don't think we've seen the worst of it yet. But so far it hasn't affected supply of food, clothing, shelter.

<comment><USER32> Hospitals in China have been cancelling all elective surgeries and sending the majority of their in-patient home. This was done partly due to the fears of the virus but also because a large part of irregular staff (nurse assistants contractors, medical students and registrars) were away and unable to work. Bear in mind the outbreak happened in late winter when most hospitals would run at near capacity anyway and there is no way to avoid the loss of life.

I agree that we have not fully realised the effect of the lockdown yet, but from what I have gathered things are not very promising. It's unlikely that people will ever go without food or shelter, however the economic progress they worked hard to achieve in the past decade could very easily be undone.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> All my medical colleagues kept saying this was bad. In the first cohorts of patients, 10-20% needed ICU level care. I have privy to the latest peer reviewed guidelines for medicine and had a double take when I read the initial complications: 19.6% Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS). ARDS has a supportive type of treatment, which means that we give you all the basics for life and hope that you pull through. It's the last resort of care. It's only ~150 people, that statistics might be off. Then the cohort study came out that was looking at 44k patients. It lined up with the first cohort so close you could consider it a rounding error.

Folks, get mentally ready to know someone that will die because of this. Luckily, almost everyone in this thread will be alive, but those that have diabetes, cancer, coronary artery disease, and the elderly are the ones who will have poor outcomes because of it.

>[http://weekly.chinacdc.cn/en/article/id/e53946e2-c6c4-41e9-9...](http://weekly.chinacdc.cn/en/article/id/e53946e2-c6c4-41e9-9a9b-fea8db1a8f51) >[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32031570-clinical- characteri...](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32031570-clinical- characteristics-of-138-hospitalized-patients-with-2019-novel-coronavirus- infected-pneumonia-in-wuhan-china/?dopt=Abstract) >[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31986264-clinical- features-o...](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31986264-clinical-features-of- patients-infected-with-2019-novel-coronavirus-in-wuhan-china/?dopt=Abstract) >[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32007143-epidemiological- and...](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32007143-epidemiological-and-clinical- characteristics-of-99-cases-of-2019-novel-coronavirus-pneumonia-in-wuhan- china-a-descriptive-study/?dopt=Abstract)

</comment><comment><USER52> The fatality rate of Italy is scary high. I read the reason is that they have such a high percentage of elderly.

<comment><USER53> Yes, it's Simpson's paradox. Fatality rate is lower in Italy than in China for all individual age ranges, but the overall rate is higher in Italy because of the older population.

<comment><USER54> Visualization (one of my favorites):

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox)

</comment></comment></comment><comment> giovan-ni I think the sequence of choices is what matters most. First they 'quarantined' Lombardia and some surrounding provinces. This looked nonsensical, or worse, as the contagion spread was nationwide already. Not two full days after, they are extending the restrictive measures to the whole of Italy. The net result is to have scared back home a lot of people working or studying in Lombardia, thereby easing the potential burden on the collapsing regional health system.

The restrictive measures themselves are hardly enforceable, with some very important exceptions, e.g. schools. Hopefully, they would induce some change in habits.

I am from Milano, and my daily life has certainly been affected. I left the city two weeks ago. It was easy for me, though, as I can distance teach and I have a place in the mountains.

<comment><USER55> The new decree is probably a response to many potentially contagious people fleeing to the south. As I see it, if the draft version of the previous decree were not leaked, the final version would not cause so many people to run away.

Frankly, I expected that these measures will be extended to the entire country not later than by the end of the week. We're still in the exponential growth phase.

<comment> giovan-ni You are right about the leakage. The final decree places no restrictions on traveling back to residence, and even admits self-certification of other reasons for traveling.

I am not sure you are right in assuming the leakage was unintended, though. If they wanted people to run, the effective way was to force a choice under the imminent and vague threat of being trapped in the 'red zone'.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> The US case growth and death growth curves are same as Italy ten days ago (Feb 28 & 29 respectively for March 9). I wonder if the US will take as drastic actions, or perhaps individual US states.

</comment><comment><USER57> This is supposed to be a trasnscription of some Whatsapp calls between medical personnel in the north and south of Italy where the northerners try to update the southerners on the situation

[https://files.catbox.moe/3ns6c1.mp4](https://files.catbox.moe/3ns6c1.mp4)

This file is several weeks old by now, a search on the 'net finds a number of pages where the link is mentioned (including one from the 21st of januari 2020 - according to Google that is - hoax alert? if so a prescient hoax in that they knew it would start in the north of Italy).

This being the internet it it hard to ascertain the veracity of the thing. If it is for real it sounds way worse than e.g. the situation on the cruise ship 'Diamond Princess' which saw 700+ infections but only a few deaths as far as I know, nor does it tally with the situation in Korea. In the (supposed) transcription they talk about a larger number of cases in younger people without existing medical conditions, again something which goes counter the current narrative. One of the possible explanations given for the higher mortality in Italy (~4%) compared to Korea (~0.7%) is that Italy has a generally older population (the oldest in Europe) but that does not explain the mentioned incidence of cases among younger people. Of course the way countries count 'cases' can also differ so there is another possible explanation but this still does not explain those cases among younger people.

<comment><USER58> Facepalm.

Are you really still claiming this is not real?

<comment><USER57> No, I am claiming that this specific sound file might not be real given that there are references to it from the 21st of january (i.e. way before it hit Italy) and given the stated incidence of cases in younger people while the narrative is that the disease is mostly mild in those under 50. There is no doubt that there is a pandemic going on, I can see it happen around me here in Sweden.

<comment><USER58> My apologies then.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> I'm curious to how does these measures affect individuals ability to get help and solve their problems they may have given the nation wide shutdown. I understand that WHO questioning of China's decision to lockdown of many of it's regions is now seen as helpful in buying the world time to deal with covid19 spread (at the cost of individual freedom and access to help in those lockdown regions).

But, don't lockdown also create massive barriers of people, including of those who need access to life essential products/services?

<comment><USER50> There has been no product shortages in China except for facemasks. Since the first days of the lockdown till today, e-commerce is still working, deliveries are still being made. Supermarkets and pharmacies are still open. There are reduced hours and the vast majority of brick and mortar shops are closed, but no one is struggling to find daily necessities.

One area that does seem to be lacking is gyms, beauty salons, barber shops etc. But really those things are luxuries - people are able to go on without it.

Lockdown really sucks but it doesn't suck because of a lack of goods. It sucks because a massive number of people in pink collar/service roles are unable to work. It sucks because the government, and other fearful people, have essentially decided that face-to-face social interaction is not a prerequisite for a functioning society. That might sound fine to someone who is introverted and a homebody anyways, but when interactions have been forced onto the internet or behind masks and checkpoints for months, I dunno... For me it's really trying. I don't so much miss the products of life before coronavirus as I miss the society we had.

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> Related: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22527796](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22527796)

</comment><comment><USER61> If anyone wants to help out they might like to consider joining this volunteer effort. There are people working on data analysis and visualisation, communications and messaging, and other efforts.

[https://www.endcoronavirus.org/](https://www.endcoronavirus.org/)

</comment><comment><USER62> I hope other countries follow the same example. China gave a great demonstration that it's unfortunately the only way to stop such a thing from spreading. People just don't give a f __*.

Here the cases country by country: [https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/](https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/)

It's interesting to see that the growth is almost everywhere the same. In some countries it just started earlier.

It took just 1 week (or 5 days min) to have cases from less than 100 to roughly 1000. Same in Italy, same in S. Korea, same in Germany, etc.

</comment><comment><USER63> This sounds authoritarian as fuck, you have to sign a document to say why you're outside.

Some countries are following the chinese example of "authoritarian democracy", particularly European countries with big commercial ties to China.

Then you have the reverse side of things: USA, where not even tests are being done in obviously suspect cases. But people can still go to work, buy things, live their life.

There's pros and cons to both approaches, but compared to how H1N1 was handled I definitely see a turn to authoritarianism, at least in Italy.

</comment><comment><USER64> Since the mortality for younger people seems to be quite low I wonder, given the serious circumstances, whether it would be useful to give some (maybe volunteers?) medical staff in endangered regions "controlled" exposures to corona-virus so that the hospitals don't have a staffing problem due to sick doctors/nurses if a serious outbreak happens.

</comment><comment><USER65> There is 'encouraging signs' in Korea's COVID-19 outbreak. I hope to Italy is also going to get through it.

Here is KCDC's English daily reports about COVID-19. [https://www.cdc.go.kr/board/board.es?mid=a30402000000&bid=00...](https://www.cdc.go.kr/board/board.es?mid=a30402000000&bid=0030)

</comment><comment><USER66> Is anyone here aware of some research trying to quantify the death toll of such a large-scale quarantine?

For instance, closing universities could result many years later in ill- trained doctors and then bad diagnostics.

The economic downfalls could result in an increase of poverty and homelessness-related deaths and suicides.

<comment><USER19> What? I do think that doctors in training will be able to go back to school in a few months. Have you missed the part about hospitals being on the edge of being overwhelmed already?

</comment></comment><comment><USER67> What surprises me is the number of deaths in relation to the number of infections. Even higher than Iran where I would expect less effective patient management than in northern Italy. What is your opinion on this?

<comment><USER68> 30% of the population is over 60.

Only 17% of the Chinese`population is over 60.

We should expect to see a devastating impact on Italy with a much higher CFR.

[https://www.populationpyramid.net/italy/2020/](https://www.populationpyramid.net/italy/2020/)

<comment><USER69> And yet Germany (median age 48, nearly the oldest in the world, slightly older than Italy and similar to Japan) has seen only two deaths so far out of ~1,100 cases. I've yet to see a definitive explanation for the extreme difference between what we're seeing in Italy vs South Korea vs Germany when it comes to mortality rates. Italy has a developed-world, universal healthcare system. Perhaps the cases in Germany are not far enough in yet to produce a higher rate of death (seems unlikely, in many cases elsewhere older patients are dying rapidly). The only explanation that seems plausible that I've seen, is that their healthcare system (locally) was quickly overwhelmed and they're leaving the worst cases to die, unable to tend to them.

<comment><USER70> another fairly obvious explanation would also be that the Italy's numbers are underreported and there's significantly more sick people, which would also explain the healthcare breakdown.

Because I have no real explanation how a few hundred people on ventilators are supposed to bring the healthcare system down.

<comment><USER71> Here's an interview with another doctor in Milan.

[https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-monday- ed...](https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-monday- edition-1.5491009/italians-must-follow-rules-and-stay-home-to-stop- coronavirus-disaster-says-doctor-1.5491013)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER72> Three people travelled from Venice, Italy to Kerala on Feb 29th and skipped the tests at the airport. Today Kerala has confirmed 12 cases of COVID-19 and around 3000 people are under observation.

</comment><comment><USER73> This is how a global crisis begins. The virus is spread more than we know and it's getting further

</comment><comment><USER74> and i have to beg for home office here in germany...

<comment><USER75> Would denying remote work (if applicable) open up companies to lawsuits?

</comment></comment><comment><USER76> Would make more sense for the elderly and vulnerable, and those that work/live in close proximity with those to be self-quarantined. Makes little sense to apply those measures to the young and healthy, for whom the effects (both symptoms and mortality rate) are similar to contracting flu without vaccine.

</comment><comment><USER15> Unreal, a month ago (February 7th) I was posting this news story [1] related to the city of Shenzen which was about to be put into some form of lockdown, it only received one upvote. A month from that event and we have an entire European country (a G7 member to add) under lockdown. I guess the normalcy bias [2] was too strong for too many people until reality hit us hard in the face.

[1] [https://www.epochtimes.com/gb/20/2/8/n11853273.htm](https://www.epochtimes.com/gb/20/2/8/n11853273.htm)

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalcy_bias](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalcy_bias)

<comment><USER77> I had a trip booked to Italy starting on March 20 so have been following the news very closely since at least mid February... I Ask HN'd how people were tracking the virus, and the answers I got were "I'm not tracking it in any way, shape or form and I hope it reciprocates the courtesy."

Quite funny, but the stats don't lie[0]. The number of new cases in Italy has grown at an exponential rate. This is a developed economy. Similar rates are being seen in France, the UK and Switzerland. The same will happen in the US. We're all going to get this, and most of us will be fine, but if you take the midpoint of experts' forecast of 40-80% of people being infected and multiply that for a conservative 1% death rate (the WHO has mentioned 3.4% and 2% is also often thrown around), that yields

7.8 billion * 0.6 * 0.01 = 46.8 million dead

At an 80% infection rate and an 3.4% mortality rate (worst case scenario), you get 212.2 million dead.

That's a once-in-a-century, catastrophic black swan event.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_outbreak_in_I...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_outbreak_in_Italy#Statistics) – see the chart below the table for the unbelievable exponential rate

<comment><USER78> People keep extrapolating that tens of millions will die, and I don't doubt that tens of millions surely would _if_ there were no lock-downs! (The subject of this article!)

The whole point of locking down Wuhan/Hubei and then northern Italy and now the whole country and other places and cancelling large public gatherings and events is that local, regional, and national authorities start seeing the numbers soaring and initiate extreme mitigation strategies.

We don't know how successful these strategies will be individually/collectively in the long run but if China is anything to go by it can severely retard the spread of the virus.

To show I'm not spouting out of my derriere compare the logarithmic infection and death rates of China[1] and Italy[2]

So you have to modify your formula: `7.8 billion * 0.6 * 0.03 * mitigation_factor = ?` We just don't know what the mitigation_factor is yet and because the spread is exponential any dent in the rate of spread brings the fatality number tumbling down[3].

I happen to believe this virus is a _very_ serious global threat and I assure you that I am not one given to alarmism. But I also have never seen governments respond to the onset of an epidemic like this before and I'm nearly fifty and my mother says she can't remember anything like this in her lifetime. So yes, tens of millions absolutely _could_ die but I'm willing to bet that between lock-downs and modern medicine tens of millions won't and I pray to, you know, $deity I am not wrong.

[1] [https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/china/](https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/china/)

[2] [https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/italy/](https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/italy/)

[3] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kas0tIxDvrg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kas0tIxDvrg) [Exponential growth and epidemics]

<comment><USER69> There is cause for optimism in the numbers out of South Korea and China. Even assuming China has lied about their numbers (population ratios with Italy and South Korea vs China make that plainly clear, they lied to a large degree on the numbers), if China has managed to bring it under control through their extreme quarantine measures, then we can prevent it from killing tens of millions. South Korea seems to have considerably slowed it there. Japan has done a good job of limiting its spread.

China has 1.4 billion people, and they've had ~3,000 deaths (let's assume it's several times higher in reality). But we'll see tens of millions dead globally? No we will not. If you killed every person that has been infected in China, and extrapolated that event globally, we would not see tens of millions dead. So that premise is absurd, to an extreme.

I consider this to be a very serious situation, however, it's not very serious as a great mass mortality threat (unless it mutates and becomes far more deadly and we prove unable to slow it down or vaccinate against it). It's a serious threat for massive disruption to our daily lives, including severely harming the global economy. It's a serious threat to swamping our healthcare systems due to ICU demands and diverting our resources to managing the ongoing crisis (instead of routine, normal productive work).

Assuming this isn't going to burn out come Spring & Summer, the next step is to rush to vaccine, at any cost. That will end this thing globally. Maybe we'll need to vaccinate against it annually, maybe it won't come back after this year, who knows of course.

Tens of millions will not die. Tens of thousands might die in the plausible worst case scenario, before we get a vaccine ready. We can rush to vaccine at greater patient risk and financial cost, as necessary.

<comment><USER79> I think this is far too optimistic.

1\. We don't know the actual reality of what's happening on the ground in China. Hubei and Italy have approximately the same population, yet Italy is suffering more proportionally. I think the obvious explanation is drastic underreporting of cases and fatalities in China. When all is said and done I think China probably has underreported by at least a magnitude if not double that.

2\. Most Western countries won't impose the type of strategies that China undertook; they simply can't. When things get too bad to impose draconian quarantines, it'll be too late. Even Italy's efforts in quarantining the nation are not enough.

3\. Most of the world doesn't have good healthcare. I'm talking about Africa, Southwest Asia, South America. There simply aren't enough ICU beds and ventilators to go around. Even in the US, I've read reports of only 100K ventilators nationwide. If the pandemic keeps growing exponentially with a doubling period of 4 days, the US alone will have 1M cases by mid-April.

4\. Simple math. World population outside of China is 6.5B. If 10% are infected (very conservative imho) we're looking at 650M cases world wide. If the CFR drops to 1%, then we're in the neighborhood of 6.5m fatalities. And the survivors? Roughly 81% of those infected survive with no serious side effects. The remainder have serious health issues even after the disease runs its course. That's 117M casualties. This is world altering.

[https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus](https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus)

<comment><USER78> And I think your assessment is too pessimistic.

To address (1.) You and others are going to have to provide sources for why you think that China "probably has under-reported by at least a magnitude if not double that". I've seen the ill feeling and distrust towards China increase on HN and elsewhere in the last 5 years and this fits the bill.

You can explain the differences between Hubei and Italy by the differences in responses. As has been pointed out, China built two make-shift hospitals in ~ 10 days and quarantined 100s of millions in cities. Have you not seen the pictures coming out of China. Now that Italy is taking drastic steps we'll see the outcome in a few weeks and it will tell us if it is an effective strategy. If any of the reported numbers is suspect it is the total number of cases that the USA is reporting: [https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/](https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/) It's completely out of whack with every other country. This implies the US has been under-testing, something which we have lots of evidence for. On the other hand we have no evidence China is under-reporting.

To address (2.) "Most Western countries won't impose the type of strategies that China undertook; they simply can't." Why not? Why can't they?

To address (3.) "Most of the world doesn't have good healthcare." But most of the world has soap, most of the world understands what it means to self- isolate, most of the world can implement quarantining. "If the pandemic keeps growing exponentially with a doubling period of 4 days," Looks like mitigation strategies slow the doubling period to three weeks, why pick the worst case scenario?

To address (4.) "Simple math." Yes! Times an unknown mitigation factor of ? This outbreak is scary because it's exponential (highly lethal and highly infectious), but the total fatalities is also highly susceptible to interventions exactly for the same reason.

<comment><USER79> Chinese underreporting is currently underestimated by a factor of 20:([https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.01.23.20018549v...](https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.01.23.20018549v2))

I have no ill feeling towards China other than the fact that they have a repressive, authoritarian government. Those types of government necessarily try to control and spin the news to maintain their authority. If a country is willing to censor Winnie the Pooh to make their leader feel better, than they'll naturally minimize the effect of SARS-Cov2.

I also agree that the US is underreporting due to inadequate testing. Estimates in the US should be closer to 9-10K. I think that we'll see a large spike in cases as soon as testing approaches levels in other countries.

My inclination regarding quarantine controls in Western countries stems from the willingness of these societies to restrict freedoms. Italy's quarantine is very basic, a 1 on a 1-10 level. Compared to what China implemented, it's not even close.

Soap isn't the ability to treat cases; it's a way of trying to mitigate the spread.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER80> The world is affected by Covid-19, most of the groceries have limited supplies it it seems like a lot of people did hoard for food.

</comment><comment><USER81> Why can't this be upvoted?

</comment><comment><USER82> It seems like these actions taken by governments will ultimately be futile, so the question is: can a vaccine or effective antiviral be developed fast enough to be worth the ~2-4 months of "slow spread" that can be bought in exchange for the economic and social slowdowns a country will sustain by creating massive quarantines like this?

While an authoritarian government may be better suited to positively addressing some very specific problems (such as a pandemic), I do not personally consider the benefits to be worth the costs of infringing on everyone's freedoms. A government built around liberty and individual rights simply cannot enforce a sufficiently useful quarantine here to contain something approximately as infectious as the flu.

Even China, which has severely curbed the spread of the coronavirus at tremendous expense, is still dealing with an exponential decay of new cases, at best. At the current rate (and assuming no incoming infections from abroad), it could take China a full year to go 14 days with no new cases. And if they let up restrictions sooner than that, perhaps they will lose ground to the virus once more. It does not seem sustainable.

Also note that most cases are not being tested and reported. Anecdotally, I have second degree connections who are mildly infected and being responsible (although still probably exposing some people who live near them), but see no point of getting tested because they don't need the hospital and it's just an extra trip out in public. Other seemingly sick people are out and about in the city in which I live, coughing without covering their mouths in busy areas, etc. Perhaps I am just noticing it more, but I suspect the official case numbers are still off by a factor of 10 or more, so considering roughly a million people are likely infected throughout the world, containment is a fantasy at this point.

<comment><USER83> Assuming that survival grants some level of immunity, if you can flatten the curve of the epidemic, you can make a limited supply of hospital beds, supplies, and personnel go a lot further.

<comment><USER82> This is a good point, and I think it is reasonable to start with the immunity assumption, since it is generally the case for respiratory viruses.

Still, I wonder what the math looks like. It has indeed been shown that flu outbreaks in ideal conditions are more intense, but conversely, the flu seasons are shorter [0]. If medical attention makes a significant difference in patient outcome, then the longer virus season is presumably preferable. However, the significance of medical attention needs to somehow be weighed against the total number of people who end up being infected and the costs of shutting down pieces of the global economy for longer periods of time (not to mention limiting individual rights.)

Consider that less vulnerable people may be more likely to become infected in their daily lives since they are more active and likely come into contact with more people. In this case, a faster outbreak with many mild cases may actually result in faster herd immunity, and therefore fewer total infections in vulnerable populations. Perhaps a partial quarantine of at-risk populations is the best solution.

[0] [https://www.citylab.com/environment/2018/10/big-cities- have-...](https://www.citylab.com/environment/2018/10/big-cities-have-longer- flu-seasons-while-small-cities-have-more-intense-ones/572161/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> For anyone claiming that this is just a flu:

I've never heard of an entire country being shut down because of the flu.

<comment><USER84> I've never heard of 14 people dying in a 120-bed nursing home of the seasonal flu in a 3 week time span either, but the Coronavirus is making that happen in Kirkland, WA right now. Actually, about 30 people have died, but since they don't have enough tests, they can't say that it was Coronavirus.

My wife is an administrator at a Nursing facility that is much larger, and this many people DYING so quickly is terrifying.

<comment><USER85> Do you have any numbers or is it just anecdotal? Because when worked in a nursing home back the day, the seasonal flus was already bad enough, so...

<comment><USER86> I'm not OP, but it's a quick search. "Nineteen of those who died in King County were residents of Life Care Center, a nursing home in Kirkland, according to Public Health - Seattle & King County. Researchers say the virus may have been circulating undetected for weeks."[0]

[0] - [https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/coronavirus-number- confirme...](https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/coronavirus-number-confirmed- cases-more-than-100-virus-moves-more-counties/XIDPHMLVOJAAREQ5YCL75367PU/)

<comment><USER85> I was referring to the fact that nobody died fothe flu the last time it was around. usually, at least over here, you don't conduct that level of testing.

Which indicates one really big issue. People are, for a large degree, scared by numbers now. Not because the nmbers look black death level bad, but rather because there are no numbers on stuf like, say, the flu or some other disease out there to compare them against. Not blaming people for it, that's just how numbers work, not just for diseases.

bad thing is, nobody is addressing this, or anything else related to testing, numbers and so on, in the public. Which includes TV, internet, papers... Instead we have fake news spreading. This fake news is then erroding trust in official information. And as a reult you have to sides, one that believes the virus is at most a flu and the other one believing it will at least be the spanish flu if not the black death. Both are wrong, but the true facts are not getting through. Also the official information is badly presented.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER87> The voting system on HN is being used to punish those that try to stay calm and put things into perspective. Frankly, this actually surprises me. Either I always have had a distored view of the hacker culture, or some large scale manipulation is going on. Since I am not inclined to believe in conspiracy theories, I guess I was always wrong about the hacker culture and its people.

And now, let the donwvotes come. I am pretty done with this site anyway. BTW, why doesn't HN allow me to delete my account? This seems worse then FaceBook. Even Twitter lets you delete your account and your posts. I smell bigotry, and that is why I want to run away.

</comment><comment><USER88> The government is calling to unity, and the situation is tragic enough that no-one can ignore the call.

However the left wing (and the current ruling coalition) has some serious responsibilities here, and I hope they are held accountable once this mess is over. A few weeks ago we were told that 'the only virus there is, is racism', implying that people worried about the virus spreading were doing so because of an anti-Chinese sentiment. The other popular talking point was that there are more flu deaths every year, so one shouldn't worry.

I see a link between this attitude and the current disaster.

The situation is bad, though. I was particularly shocked by an ICU medic from Lombardia declaring that in his hospital they cannot treat all the patients, and that they have to select those that appear to have the highest survival chances, something you do in times of war.

(throwaway since my coworkers know my username here, and they wouldn't like my political opinions, I hope this is allowed, otherwise please remove.)

<comment><USER89> Left or right, all governments seem to be doing less than stellar job fighting this, to say the least. I don't understand why it is relevant.

<comment><USER90> Some are doing a good job eg Taiwan [https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/03/taiwan-reins- spread-c...](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/03/taiwan-reins-spread- coronavirus-countries-stumble-200307034353325.html)</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: MonoThesis – A productivity tool for asset managers - <AUTHOR> https://monothesis.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> Hey HN,

Recently there's been a lot of discussion on active versus passive in the asset management space, famously symbolised by the recent conclusion of the Warren Buffett bet.

We've been talking with a lot of hedge-funds in the past year and been struck by just how few tools active asset managers have available to them on the qualitative side. There's an immense amount of fundamental information that goes into an investment, both on the qualitative and quantitative side, but the existing tools are mostly focusing on the quantitative aspect.

We've decided to take the approach of helping with the qualitative aspect by giving asset managers better ways to access all the information available to them.

MonoThesis is our attempt at giving asset managers a better way to write their investment thesis and worry less about managing data.

We know there are quite a few people here on HN who always contribute great points to the finance discussions so we'd love to hear your take on this.

\-- Martin</comment>


Show HN: My weekend project, MealMogul.com - <AUTHOR> http://www.mealmogul.com

<comment><AUTHOR> I like cooking, but making a meal for just myself or my housemate seems pretty inefficient.

So I spent a few hours this weekend knocking together a site that allows people to post "meals" that they will be cooking in future. If you live nearby, you can eat a (hopefully) delicious home-cooked meal for £4 - £5. A restaurant in the area would typically cost £10-£15.

It's a little like GrubWithUs meets AirBNB, although I'm doing it purely for fun - I hack away at a startup as a day job.

If you're in London, pop by to one of my meals in the next few weeks!

<comment><USER2> Tom, I'm working on a project similar to GrubWithUs (blog.eatsocial.net). We are a team of 3 and just started working every weekend on this about a month ago.

How many of you are working on this?

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> My advice would be to show more content before you make people sign in with Facebook. Since I don't like connecting things to my Facebook profile I clicked out of the site, when otherwise I might have been interested and spent more time exploring.

<comment><USER4> Too many questions left if somebody isn't willing to sign in to an unknown service with FB (which I am not).

I'm guessing this like an AirBnb for meals?

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> There was a site similar to this in SF, HouseFed, but it looks like its down now. Another variation here is Munchery, where the meals are actually made by chefs.

I love cooking and hosting meals at my place, but I don't actually want to meet new people through my meals or make money. Instead, I just want to catch up with people I haven't seen in a while in a way that doesn't involve drinking (the default around here).

But I find it hard to figure out who to invite for meals, because I'm not sure who's around on any given night, and I don't want to invite too many people, and I don't want to invite someone too many times (and have them feel bad for having to say no so much). I wish I could just say "tonight I'm making X, come over if you're interested, reply by X so I can buy appropriate portions."

I've tried using G+ circles and Facebook lists, but everyone's on different networks and has different rates of response.

Anyway, that's my problem, would love an app with a solution. :)

<comment><USER2> Another similar site in the UK is HouseBites.co.uk.

They are revenue making at the moment (note sure on profitability).

I am workimg on a similar project st the moment EatSocial.net where the focus is on eating out rather than eating in. Think meetups in restaurants.

Early blog posts about it here: <http://blog.eatsocial.net>

http:

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> This looks awesome for someone like me - balancing cooking, healthy food, regular meals, and running a startup time is a major PITA. Food is regularly a burden rather than a joy.

Having a homecooked meal from someone nearby? Sounds totally spot on. It could be quick if I want to leave (could be some social issues), WAY cheaper than delivery, cheaper even than eating out, and presumably it'll be healthier than just drinking tea and alcohol instead of eating (my usual diet).

That said, critical mass if the big challenge here - sites like this take a huge amount of focused effort. Feet-on-the-ground city-specific events, marketing, networking, etc. And mealmogul could face an even bigger challenge for people like me who live in SF without a car, but up on Twin Peaks with few people around.

That said, I'd love to be eating home cooked meals from my neighbors soon, so I hope they can find a way to explode in SF!

<comment><USER7> Completely agree with the sentiment that food often becomes a burden rather than a joy.

Love the idea and congrats on knocking it out in a weekend.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Consider describing the service more on the front page in terms of what it does and how it works. Currently, without logging in, I have no idea. Does everyone pitch in to cook pot luck style? Do you deliver these meals to different places for a fee? Do people just show up and buy dishes? Getting me to sign up is much easier if you resolve this uncertainty.

</comment><comment><USER9> Add more login options. Currently I have FB and G+ in my /etc/hosts as 127.0.0.2 -- a little detox. I'm writing this comment because I know that from developer's perspective the FB-login-only may seem a good thing (I've been there), but it puts many people off, for many reasons. I know this is only a prototype etc., but for later.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the feedback. I'm using Omniauth, so it's really simple to add different login options.

I'll put it on my list for next weekend!

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> How do you get around restaurant and food prep regulations? Once an event is public and payment is made for services some very strick government controls come into play. Or am I misunderstanding what is going on here?

</comment><comment><USER11> I was just talking about doing this with friends every friday, we all love to cook and show off - it makes me spend a week investigating food preparation to impress. I've been in cities before where groups of friends have an open night once a week for a $5 tip. Works really well, especially once you get traction and a random group of friends show up every time. Great concept, good luck!

</comment><comment><USER12> I've had dinner with many people in their homes, and at my parent's house my mom hosts a home-made dinner every Sunday in an open invite sort of fashion like this, so I am familiar with and really like the idea, but I have a question that a lot of the clients might have.

In this situation (possibly complete strangers meeting for the sole purpose of eating) what is the norm for after dinner socializing? I think it'd be fair to say that some people would just leave after they're done eating, but how does a host go about inviting their guests to leave? Or would hosting such a dinner automatically entail at least a round of talk afterwards?

If you can keep it simple, than it'd be easier to host. I just say this cause my mother's dinners usually last all evening long, and that isn't something I'd personally be willing to host, although a small dinner would be much easier for me to manage.

Not that you should try to regulate it by any means, but would you have readily available advice to users?

</comment><comment><USER13> I don't use Facebook so I couldn't get very far. And I like cooking, but I wouldn't be keen to host absolute strangers in my house - I'm guessing that's the idea?

I wondered if you could have something like this but the host would cook a dish if they got a minimum number of takers and perhaps pick-ups were an option/encouraged/forced. So there'd be a tipping point to make a meal happen. If I already have a broad social group, but I want to make a bit on the side from my cooking, it's barely worth the $x to risk having some nutbag show up. But it might be worth me cooking twice a week for a minimum of 10 people each time, and charging $8. Then they drop in at a certain time to eat or pick up their containers/bags and away they go.

</comment><comment><USER14> I'd like for this service to take off. People spend much more on eating out than on hotels, so an AirBnb for meals makes a lot of sense.

Just pick one area of London and market the hell out of it. Make sure there is a variety of food styles available every night.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's the plan - I'm going to try to start in North/Central London. Islington, Camden & Shoreditch (home to the infamous Silicon Roundabout).

Short of actually flyering local homes, does anyone have any ideas for cheap & effective local advertising? I've got some Facebook ads running, but targetting more locally than just "London" doesn't return many people.

<comment><USER2> Advertising this could be one of your biggest costs. Reduce the requirement for advertising by devising a traction plan, if you haven't already. You already have the right idea by targeting a small area first and then expanding.

There is a similar site to yours already launched in London, fairly well established called HouseBites.co.uk - have you studied their model? Mike from HouseBites gave a talk at YCombinator London about 1 or 2 months ago. Did you see this talk? There is a video floating around somewhere.

Some of the logistical issues were discussed which may give you some assistance on for Meal Mogul.

I am also working on a different yet related project EatSocial.net (see blog.EatSocial.net) - think meetups in restaurants. Would you be interested to meet for a chat? I am based in London and would like to hear more about Meal Mogul.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Badass! I wanted to do something like this in Austin, Texas but haven't had the time just yet.

</comment><comment><USER16> Interesting idea. While it would be nice to have alternative log in options, I do give you credit for making the facebook log in just that - logging in, rather than asking for permission to post to my wall, etc. etc. etc. which turns me off right away from most sites. Another advantage to using facebook for log in is that fact that you are basically inviting strangers into your home, so it wouldn't hurt to know something a little about their identity in advance.

</comment><comment><USER17> I think it's a cool idea, but I didn't really get what it was at first. I thought I would be able to share recipes and view other people's recipe's, and now I'm disappointed that I don't have that Chili recipe :(

Also, will you be adding closed events where I can invite friends? Seems like a convenient way to not forget who I promised to eat with/cook for and what I'll be making.

</comment><comment><USER18> Don't know what the idea is and it's asking for access to information I have on facebook. Sorry, but no.

</comment><comment><USER19> "to continue, sign in with FB"

well, sorry, no.

here is the ONLY decent "global sign in" solution that i know of btw:

<https://browserid.org/>

not going to sign in with anything that offers anything _less_

</comment><comment><USER20> You need to make sure <http://mealmogul.com/> goes to @ as well as the www subdomain.

</comment><comment><USER21> Love the idea. In my case I can't really host meals because my place is so small, but I'd love to attend & participate in others.

</comment><comment><USER22> Looks like <http://www.super-marmite.com/> by @shingara

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, it looks very similar to super-marmite - I'd not seen that before.

I guess the key is just getting critical mass in an area, since it's effectively just a marketplace. Super-marmite seems to be very Paris-focussed at the moment.

There's also housebites.com, but it's a bit more upmarket and focussed on takeaway/delivery.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I would put some effort and change the default bootstrap css theme because it looks like many other websites.

</comment><comment><USER24> You need someone for the German localisation/translation? I'm helping you!

</comment><comment><USER25> I really, really like the idea, but I hate Facebook and I won't have an account with them. Otherwise I'd definitely host a meal.

<comment><USER26> Yeah, maybe next steps could involve logins via other sites like Google, Twitter, OpenID, etc?

<comment><USER27> Or, you know, just use a login name with a password? Why do identities need to be connected by default? Who really thinks making up a name and password is too much trouble? Are the Hacker News and Reddit models really so bad?

<comment><USER28> Facebook is great for a site like this, as it ties someone to a real identity. Excluding the few who don't want to use Facebook isn't a bad compromise for the great service it provides to site owners.

<comment><USER29> Define 'real identity'. Either this site is meant to allow people to connect w/o knowing each other. Or it's for close friends (and in that case I don't see the point).

Facebook: 50% of my (heh.. Hate that site. Admittedly meager selection of 60 friends) have a pseudonym as name. Among my 2nd level friends that's even more common. It's really _uncommon_ to have a real looking name, not some play on words or weird spellings of something that not even remotely resembles your name. Ah yeah - and my privacy settings _should_, unless Zuck decided otherwise lately, make it impossible for anyone to see much about me anyway, so my 'real identity' is worth zilch.

<comment><USER28> None of my friends have pseudonyms, none of my extended network do either, it's all full, real names. I'm of the belief Facebook enforces proper names (even for Snoop Dogg!)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Spotify-playlist-downloader – Easily download you spotify playlists - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/ashishmadeti/spotify-playlist-downloader <comment><USER2> Very cool. Would be good to see a js implementation.</comment>


Reading Into the End of Google Reader  - <AUTHOR> http://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/library-babel-fish/reading-end-google-reader <comment><AUTHOR> This, for me, is the money quote:

 _Of course, my surprise and sense of outrage is misplaced. Google is a business, and it's participating in a trend toward facilitated helplessness, giving us walled gardens in which we can relax and easily share information among a socially similar circle, where our likes and dislikes and interrelationships can be coaxed into view, recorded, and monetized and where the information environment is shaped to fit our profile rather than our curiosity._

 _[F]acilitated helplessness_ is the enemy we need to watch for and fight.</comment>


Why Your Crypto Currency Portfolio Sucks - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@kkurtvon/why-your-crypto-currency-portfolio-sucks-b95b956bac1b <comment><USER2> It's true. At one point a friend of mine was in 30 cryptocurrencies. Bull run? Didn't matter since the allocation diluted everything so gains weren't really significant. I understand the excitement to BUY BUY BUY but the fate of so many alt coins are also TBD.

<comment><AUTHOR> Exactly. So many people buying alt coins because they get 'bored' of watching their holdings. (Source: Survey)</comment></comment>


The Google+ Platform Blog - <AUTHOR> http://googleplusplatform.blogspot.com

<comment><USER2> Would be nice if they concentrated on iterating faster on Google+, haven't really seen any movement (in terms of features) since they launched.

<comment><USER3> They are releasing updates every couple of days. [http://www.google.com/support/profiles/bin/static.py?hl=en&#...</a>

<comment><USER2> Its been six weeks and the only thing worth of note on there is that they now allow you re-order circles. epic.

<comment><USER4> They added games today.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> why bother? they will deprecate it in no time anyway i.e.: the google translate api <http://code.google.com/apis/language/translate/overview.html>

<comment><USER6> The team was seeing a lot of abuse of the Translate API, but they're developing a paid version: [http://allthingsd.com/20110603/google-not-killing- translate-...](http://allthingsd.com/20110603/google-not-killing-translate- api-after-all-will-develop-paid-version/)</comment></comment>


The Guaranteed Way To Keep Your Blog Online - <AUTHOR> http://nickoneill.com/keep-your-blog-online/

<comment><USER2> $40 per month for 1 GB RAM? My favorite VPS provider's price is half that, less if you pay for a quarter or year in advance [1]. The people I've interacted with there are friendly and competent.

The SSH-based out-of-band serial console is great for people like me who want fix things themselves when they break, instead of trying to get hold of a support person, explain your setup, explain your problem, explain your proposed solution, and explain what you need them to do because only support can do it.

They even explain on the wiki how to use a custom kernel with their platform [2].

Disclaimer: My only past or present connection to prgmr.com is that I'm a fan and paying customer.

[1] <http://prgmr.com/xen/>

[2] [http://wiki.prgmr.com/mediawiki/index.php/Using_a_kernel.org...](http://wiki.prgmr.com/mediawiki/index.php/Using_a_kernel.org_kernel_under_xen)</comment>


Definition of Product Market Fit - <AUTHOR> http://swombat.com/2014/1/26/product-market-fit <comment><USER2> I liked Marty Cagan's definition: "once you have achieved a threshold number (I advocate at least 6) of live, referenceable customers for a given vertical market"

I'd say you don't have product-market fit until you have closed, signed win- win sales and a working process to acquire more at a profit. But I'm not a huge fan of 'minimal viable products' and rapid iterations. You really ought to at least have a strong competence at actually _delivering_ something that solves the problem for _skeptical_ buyers before you go out "testing".</comment>


Most people probably shouldn't go to school - <AUTHOR> http://coryliu.com/post/109988042607/a-dirty-secret-most-people-probably-shouldnt-go

<comment><USER2> It is absolutely worth $X0,000.

You can't really grasp the value of college as a smart and capable young person until you hit your thirties. That's when the idealism of youth starts to fade and hard truths start staring you in the face.

One of those hard truths is that most people are not smart and capable. They rely on others around them. If you took a smart and capable person and transplanted them into a strange environment, they'd thrive after a short time finding traction. Take most everyone else out of their carefully-cultivated social milieu, and they'd fall flat on their face.

So smart and capable people will pooh-pooh the value of college because they don't understand what it's doing for them. They'll think of throwing themselves against the free market as the ultimate challenge, the great meritocratic equalizer. And for these people, it is.

For those that are not smart and capable, it is not. The free market is a horrific meat-grinder of a system that chewed up everyone you loved as a child and spit them out beaten and broken. Most people need social stability, structure, a safe place. That's what our social institutions provide.

The value a college degree provides, that piece of paper that signals to your future employer that you are worth hiring, is indispensable. If you are not smart and capable, you will not be able to jury-rig alternative signaling. You're at the bottom of the free hiring market.

I would love to live in a world where you didn't need to mortgage your future to pay for the present. But the world is not like that. As a young person without family money to fall back on, you're going to have to make a number of investments just to get to the point where you are comfortable. You need a home, you need a vehicle. You need a spouse. You also need a degree. You're starting at the bottom of a hill, and the college degree is right there at the bottom.

<comment><USER3> > _I would love to live in a world where you didn 't need to mortgage your > future to pay for the present. But the world is not like that._

Speak for yourself - the US is not the world.

Signed,

someone from a Western European country without crippling student debt and a degree.

<comment><USER2> > Speak for yourself

I was.

<comment><USER3> Well ok, if you say so - the choice of words in "the world is not like that" suggested otherwise. And I guess I am being pedantic, as the whole discussion is obviously aimed at people from the US, and I fully agree with your overall point.

<comment><USER4> I'm an American with a passport who has lived and grown businesses in Europe. (I attended private and public schools only in the US and half-heartedly finished a top 50 uni because it wasn't a top priority.)

GWB's NCBLA further inculcated standardized testing as an official religion in American education system. It's a complete and utter failure; another in a long line of ill-informed, "top-down solutions" that cause more harm than good.

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer- sheet/post/a-deca...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer- sheet/post/a-decade-of-no-child-left-behind-lessons-from-a-policy- failure/2012/01/05/gIQAeb19gP_blog.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is idiotic to think this way. So we distill your experience of college into what MOST people should do? I think not. Why? Because it becomes a head trash excuse for the lazy.

A degree is something you get for finishing. A lot of people have very little to claim they have actually completed that has meaning to an employer. But a degree is one of them that is a gold standard. A degree also signifies you've given a certain subject a lot of thought. So do certifications, previous work experience community service, awards and more.

Surprise, if you are somebody who can work smart and knows how to complete things, you are more employable than somebody who doesn't. And if you also stack on that a lot of other good qualities, skills and finished work you're an even better candidate. And if you're personable and work well with others, even better.

A more appropriate sentiment would be you didn't get much out of your degree because you changed careers. (Many people do that, no news there) But others respect the work they have done in the past and how to synthesize what they've learned from specialized and general studies to apply elsewhere.

Everybody knows college is expensive. It's not a mystery. The costs are laid out there. But it's also quite easy to develop alternative paths to completing a degree in a specialized field and not get into enormous debt. One is to do fantastic and apply to a ton of scholarships. Another is to do community college work, get the degree there (something finished) and also work and save money. But I can tell you there is a point where you can do part time college, part time work and find it really draining. it's good to complete things in a lump sum.

<comment><USER6> _A degree also signifies you 've given a certain subject a lot of thought._

If by that you mean a Bachelor's Degree, than I don't agree with you. First four years of college is just a glorified day care for young adults.

<comment><USER7> The first four years of college is what you make of them. You ultimately get out what you put in.

And ignoring that, you also cannot make blanket statements like this... there's an incredible amount of variability in four year programs. I can tell you my BSc CS degree was well earned...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Classic survivorship bias. "I became a successful, self-taught iOS developer, therefore all school is for suckers!"

It's unfortunate that this kind of thinking is so pervasive. You see it in a lot of contexts... I've seen this in folks who manage to raise themselves out of poverty and become successful, only to turn around and oppose social programs because, well, they didn't need them!

The author can't be faulted... this type of reasoning, a combination of survivorship bias, hindsight bias, and confirmation bias, is extremely human. We're wired for it. The hard part is realizing when you're doing it so you can try and catch yourself. The clearest remedy is the simplest: use data, not anecdotes.

In this case, the data supports the view that post-secondary education leads to long-term advantages. Of course, that needs to be balanced against the increasing debt load students are burdened with. But the reality is, generally speaking, more and more jobs are requiring a post-secondary degree, and advising people against getting one is generally speaking bad advice... while there are the odd outliers, they are just that, outliers.

<comment><AUTHOR> Actually I didn't say all school is for suckers, I drew the line at hard sciences and soft sciences.

Survivorship bias is real, but so is remarkably low return on investment. Its just harder to measure in people.

<comment><USER5> your headline said "most people" \-- and the whole "investment" thing is very hard. Which is why you shouldn't frame your discussion with certainties even in the headline. There are enough idiots out there telling people not to bother studying, both in words and by example. You want people hungry to work on tough problems, but they have to know what they are. And they have to see a variety of opportunities out there.

College is NOT an absolute fast track to employment. But it's an excellent reliable way to do that. Plus it's a fantastic place to find out more about yourself, meeting people, friends and for relationships. A lot of people have the college drinking perception. Which there is too much drinking, but there are a lot more ways to meet people in college where you're not drinking than in the working world.

Again just respect the work you and other people have done to get where we all are. Just to say "most people shouldn't go" is ridiculous. We want MORE people going. Show them how to do it in a financially responsible way. If that's too boring then stick to what you know.

<comment><USER8> Nailed it.

I would even go so far to say that OP's anecdotal quotes from friends in "investment research" weaken his conclusion (i.e. I'm (100%) sure I'd be a millionaire if I'd started my current job 4 years earlier. But in order to get my current job, I must've gone to school for 4 years.)

<comment><AUTHOR> The perhaps hidden point was that it is ludicrous that the best value of a degree is it lands you an interview/job, and not that it gives you as much skill otherwise.

<comment><USER8> Forgive me, but I'm struggling to keep your argument straight. Your post goes back and forth.

For example, there's a subtle difference between these two stances...

your title: _" A dirty secret: Most people probably shouldn't go to school"_

your conclusion: _" So here's a dirty secret of our times: you MAY just be better off not going to school."_

If you're arguing that education could be faster and cheaper, I don't think that comes out in your post due to other distracting claims and anecdotes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> You can get a lot out of a degree program if you try. It takes effort on your part not just the school's. As someone who is currently working on a SECOND bachelor's in CS (my first one was an economics), I can honestly say I'm learning way more than I ever did the first time around. I'm also learning way more than I possibly could on my own. I'm becoming a well rounded programmer. Instead of pigeonholing myself as self taught RoR or iOS dev, I'm learning the proper foundations needed to do more or less anything in the field. Combined with the effort I'm putting in my own side projects, I truly believe that the value of this education has been worth every penny.

To be fair, I actually had this exact same sentiment about college before I enrolled in the CS program. I really didn't put in more than the absolute minimum effort towards my Econ degree. At the time, I was focused on just getting the piece of paper; I waved my hand at the resources available to me.

The difference in maturity between then and now is also a factor. I almost feel as if I would have been better off taking a few years off between high school and undergrad. I would have had the maturity to appreciate all that a University offers.

<comment><USER10> What school accepts people for a second bachelors? I have been seriously thinking of doing that but I thought most schools didn't accept people for a second bachelors.

<comment><USER11> Oregon State University offers a post-bacc program specifically for people who already have bachelor's.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The most valuable thing I received from my school was my network of friends and a place to learn and grow as a person.

<comment><USER13> That's what the Ivy League is really for. Getting into Harvard is difficult, but getting through Harvard is easy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Before I went to "college" (it still feels wrong for me to say University lol), I too thought it would be a waste of time. I really just wanted to get out in the real-world and work. Then I went into my freshman year basically partying my grades away and crushed my ego to a little pea. Actually, it turns out you have to work your ass off to do well in an undergraduate program. So I learned how to study and I learned how to become disciplined enough to say no to distractions.

True, the computer science part of my degree was the easy part, but the other courses, the "liberal arts" part, that was the tough part that also expanded my mind. I loved most of my classes because in reality, I love learning. I love seeing the world through different lenses.

University life is also about meeting life-long friends and self discovery. EVEN if software engineering can be distilled to just learning a language to instruct a computer, going to college is still a giant stepping stone in life that I think every capable individual should experience.

<comment><USER15> Man, I connected so much with your thoughts on college that it's a little scary. Are we the same person?

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I work for a Fortune 10 company and when we are hiring young professionals, a degree signifies the individual has a certain level of commitment, dedication, and has the ability to achieve goals (aka win!).

Additionally, I have always noticed that taking a single individual's experience can lead me to taking their experience out of context. That situation is typically compounded especially when a understand very little about the person as an individual.

I would argue that Cory's experience does not reflect the average (to be fair I only began to understand the value of statistics while pursuing my college degree). In fact, check this chart out... seems like a no-brainer to me: [http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm](http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm)

<comment><USER17>
        > a degree signifies the individual has a certain level of commitment, dedication, and has the ability to achieve goals (aka win!).

Can't you also say the same about a young person without a degree, yet is still achieving levels of success in their field?

In fact, wouldn't this person have _more_ commitment, dedication, and ability, as they have the critical thinking skills to become knowledgeable and experienced, without having to fork tons of money and time to an institution?

<comment><USER8> You can't say the same with the same degree of efficiency.

If someone's a no-degree superstar, they have to network or market themselves harder to get on claypoolb's radar. Information exchange is more expensive.

degree+GPA's a reasonable filter to pass over lots of candidates. Mind you, claypoolb's also talking about entry-level positions (I think...)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I have a feeling if this person had actually gone to school for CS they would have thought it equally useless. Most CS programs don't concentrate on say building iOS apps etc.

<comment><USER19> I learned iOS myself, and I know it would be harder for me if I didn't learn different flavors of programming languages and basic data structures at school.

I don't know how good people are at evaluating the usefulness of knowledge and skills they've acquired, but I'd believe there is some kind of bias. I tend to think things I know are trivial and can be learned easily. But I've also seen smart but non-CS background people cobbling poorly written code together only to make it work and he wished he has taken some CS classes while at school as well.

It might be true that smartest people can learn everything on their own, but by definition 'most people' aren't the smartest.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I strongly believe in eventually getting rid of most traditional university lectures and replacing them with excellent online, free videos. However:

1) That's not all you get from a university. Labs, smaller classes, etc etc are very important.

2) The amount material covered by currently available free courses/videos is very, very small. You _might_ get a semi-complete computer science and math education, but that's about it.

<comment><USER5> I dont' know about getting rid of lectures. on the one hand, I think just being talked to formally for 90 minutes absolutely sucks. But it's not going to be better on video. Plus maybe it helps you discipline for uninteresting things. I like group work and discussion based stuff, however there's a limit because I want the person who knows what the are talking about giving most of the points, not the person who wants to be class clown or waste my time in an expensive course.

Group work, or actually working while being able to ask questions is pretty cool. It can always be better for any particular person but it's never going to be perfect, so best to just keep steering it in the right direction.

I do agree that the lectures should be recorded and available. Otherwise it's just lost to the ether when the educator quits or dies. And I need to hear things a few times before the importance sticks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Colleges are great in that they offer nice infrastructure that's hard to find elsewhere: amazing libraries, laboratories, possibly, access to people doing research in the area you are interested in...Ultimately, though, everyone has to teach their own selves.

<comment><USER21> They have it. But as an undergraduate you have little possibility in using them - only doing classes.

Libraries are a difference there, but in times of Internet they are no monopolies.

<comment><USER5> mmm, not necessarily. If you were interested in a specific field you could visit the class a few times and sit in, observe, ask questions of the professor or aids on office time. If you want to do a lot of things at a university, you can likely make it happen.

<comment><USER21> In theory yes, it practice, it was hard. I mean, I got into a lab, but it was a hard struggle to do so, with univ. system working against me (most of the time) rather than in favour.

IMHO its mainly the difference between top-down organization (where student is expected to perform assigned task, here: attend classes) rather than bottom-up (where the environment offers opportunities, which can be used).

If you had a very different experience, just curious - which country/univ.?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> In this post, a holder of a business degree performs an informed cost benefit analysis of getting a business degree and finds it wanting. Also, a well trained twenty something argues that training can't match the benefits of his experience.

</comment><comment><USER23> This makes the assumption that the sole goal of education is a path to a job. That's simply not the case.

Education != vocational school.

</comment><comment><USER24> Non vitae, sed scholae discimus[1]

[1] Epistulae morales ad Lucilium, Seneca

<comment><USER25> In case anyone is wondering, this translates roughly as "We do not learn for school, but for life." [1]

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_scholae_sed_vitae](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_scholae_sed_vitae)

<comment><USER26> OP has the phrase backwards, which is either a typo or asserting that learning is being done for the sake of satisfying school requirements rather than for real life.</comment></comment></comment>


Disguise that you're on Facebook with FacebookCamo - <AUTHOR> http://www.facebookcamo.com Really cool bookmarklet tool that changes Facebook to look like more 'official' websites so you can browse Facebook without getting caught at work! Also they have another bookmarklet that can make you look popular and have lots of notifications in case a pretty girl walks by your desk. <comment><AUTHOR> I've been told they are adding new themes soon that are more generic for U.S. and international users!</comment>