By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
JRPGfan said:
SvennoJ said:

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.


^ thats "only" 80,400 deaths in the UK (if I did the maths right on your numbers).

*if* you had over 1million sick beds in hopsitals, and the staff, to take care of these people (with the virus).
*if* you had enough ventilators, to keep those that need it, on such.

I think if spread gets that crazy (70%) then these Infection Fatality Rates, go atleast up by a factor of 10 or something.

The "cynical" who are okay with such, might rationalise it with saying.... thats perphaps only 800,000 deaths out of a population of 66,44 million.
UK will go on, the world will keep spinning, who cares as long as I myself live.

Yes, that's the big problem. There are far fewer free beds than the total capacity, without a ventilator when you need one, you are sure to die. Those being denied hospital care are also far more at risk of not surviving. Without increasing the ICU capacity (and assuming you can use all 4000 beds for covid 19) your death toll already rises 162K for those under 70. Then you have nearly 900K that need hospital care but can't get it even if you can free up all hospital beds or double capacity short term.

The UK government didn't quickly abandon their "quarantine 70+" plan for nothing.

This all assuming you can keep the 70+ safely out of the way.

70 to 79 2.8 million people, 70% infected 1.96 million, 476K in hospital, 206K in ICU (100K dead)
88 to 99 1.5 million people, 70% infected 1.05 million, 287K in hospital, 203K in ICU (98K dead)