Coronavirus (COVID-19) Discussion Thread

[SvennoJ]

Snoopy said:

JRPGfan said:

You realise that 30-50 year olds also contract this virus, and require intensive care + respirators right?

Even healthy 30-50 year olds, that make up a majority of the workforce, could spread this, and end up requireing hospitalisation.

Here comes the problem Snoopy.

If you do that, soon 70-80% of the entire population will have this virus.
Once that happends the health care system cannot deal with so many infected and requireing aid.


Theres 328million in the USA.
if 70% of everyone gets it lets say within the next 2-3 months, because people are going "back to the normal lives" instead, then theres going to be a need for 46 million sick beds.

The USA doesnt have that many (sickbeds, air-tanks, ventilators ect).
Do you want the sick and dieing to lay outsides on the streets? dieing there, or back in their own homes?

The damage to lives of the population would be massive, in a country that took that option.

"More than 2-3% of our lives are going to be affected if we don't start working and keep the economy going."

Even if you assumed NO ONE died from this, if you just let it spread rampant.
There would still be like ~20% that got so sick, they had to spend a week or more in bed.

This virus is gonna effect way more than just 2-3% of people's lives, even if you just ignore it and went back to work as normal.

Imagine haveing like ~50million people so sick, they cant get out of bed.
The majority of the rest, would be walking around with running noses/caughing and feeling weak ect.

It would be a odd new reality.... the death rates would be crazy, but a month lateron, everyone would probably be immune to futher infections.
You would have a entire country basically back on its feet, working as normal.... in the wake of millions and millions dieing.

Most people who get the flu won't need a sick bed or a respirator. Only people who needs it will be the elderly or people with weak immune system. I actually got the flu earlier this year and I just stayed home for about a week and I was fine just like most people.  Also, most people who are dying are the elderly and infants who should stay home like I said before.

https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/16/lower-coronavirus-death-rate-estimates/

Here we go again, it's not comparable to the flu. Yes, people under 50 are less likely to die, people under 30 even less than that. People over 40 still have a 5% chance to end up in the hospital with serious symptoms. Some of those ending up in the hospital require the ICU and can spend a weeks on a ventilator under close observation, some needing an ecmo machine when the lungs can't absorb any oxygen anymore. Plus all those with serious symptoms end up with lung scar tissue effecting the rest of their lives.


Modern healthcare can keep these groups alive and get them through it to get recovered in a month (with lung scar tissue effecting the rest of their lives) To stay with the UK example, the UK has roughly 4000 ICU beds, 150K total hospital beds, most occupied for regular needs.

0 to 9 -> 3.8 million people, 70% infected 2.66 million, 2.6K in the hospital, 53 in ICU (50 dead)
10 to 19 -> 3.7 million people, 70% infected 2.59 million, 7.8K in the hospital, 388 in ICU (155 dead)
20 to 29 -> 4.4 million people, 70% infected 3.08 million, 37K in the hospital, 1800 in ICU (924 dead)
30 to 39 -> 4.6 million people, 70% infected 3.22 million, 103K in the hospital, 5150 in ICU (2570 dead)
40 to 49 -> 4.4 million people, 70% infected 3.08 million, 151K in the hospital, 9500 in ICU (4620 dead)
50 to 59 -> 4.7 million people, 70% infected 3.29 million, 336K in the hospital, 40940 in ICU (19714 dead)
60 to 69 -> 3.4 million people, 70% infected 2.38 million, 395K in the hospital, 108250 in ICU (52360 dead)

There's your kids and workforce. Quarantine everyone over 35 and take the 'minor' losses?
The other 30% gets infected eventually as well but any 70% as peak load is about the estimate when you let things run free.