haxxiy said:
Well, even if it were to spread uncontrolled over the course of about two months, the estimated peak would be less than 10% of total number of infections ocurring at the same time. So, that's more like 30,000 hospital beds needed, rather than 300,000. And that's assuming the sample is statistically relevant and requirements for hospitalization remain more or less the same as they are now. @JRPGfan - Italy only tests high risk persons since February 27. They estimate there are some ten other cases for every one they are diagnosing. Same thing happened in Wuhan: 86% of estimated undiagnosed cases. When we'll be sure? Only when we're able to test a statistically significant sample of the population for Covid-19 antigens. That's why estimating from a 2.5% death rate, or any other death rate one might choose, for 70% of the US population seems disingenuous. Even if 70% of the population were to get it, the number of diagnosed cases would be off by an order of magnitude or more. Specially if the elderly remain in isolation and it disproportionally targets younger, mostly assymptomatic people, as it would be the case with vertical isolation. |
This is all just guess work, some say x5 others x10.
What we do know is that of the people we suspect have it, and test possitive for it, in denmark, ~20% end up going to the hospital and ~5,1% go to the ICU.
How many more are running around out there, with the virus without symptoms? Probably as they say 5 for every 1 showing symptoms.
And Yes your right, that number should be factored into a situation where you assume 70% of the population has it (which I clearly forgot).
Those would still be massive numbers though.
No nation wants to see 70% of their population get this, the herd immunity route is crazy risky.
^ this was what started the best case/ worst case debate.
It was a matter of economy vs risk of letting it spread, debate (a few pages back in this thread, which lead us here).
edit:
"Mostly" is the keyword.
Yesterday a 28year old marathon runner, in great shape without any underlying risk factors passed away to this.
Today in the papers, I read a 5year old got so sick (in the UK) he ended up on a ventilator.
"Specially if the elderly remain in isolation"
Dr John Campbell, went over some statistic yesterday breaking down the mortality rates.
Apparently obesity is a big factor (~71% of people that it kills are overweight), people immuno-compromised, renal (kidneys), cancer, ect.
Are you fat? do you smoke? are you a male? (apparently it kills alot more men than women).
source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJ3QqNeeWUA
50-59 = 1% mortality
60-69 = 3,5% mortality
70-79 = 12,5% mortality
80-89 = 19,7% mortality
Campbells numbers for Italy's mortality statisics.
Over 50 years old? stay home.
Smoke / astma? ect stay home.
Fat? stay home
Cancer? stay home.
kidney issues? stay home
High blood pressure? stay home.
I'm sure what you said, could be done, in a inteligent way, and you could make the best of the situation by only haveing the population that statistically should survive it, get it.
I still think its a very risky way to go, no "isolation" is perfect, and the more of a population total has this virus, the higher the risks those groups likely to die from it, at put at.
