| Naum said: I wonder what the actual % death rate we would have had instead of the 0.5-1% if we did not have lockdowns around the world. |
With the ones on ventilators, like 75-80% of them die anyways.
So in that case just ~20-25% more.
However, theres alot of people that dont reach that state, who sit around in hospitals with a "oxygen tank" hooked up to them, to help them breathe.
Sometimes that air is critital for them, sometimes they go into shock/have heart attacks, lunge cant open, and hospitals save them.
Overall? I dont know, probably atleast twice over, would be my guess.
The thing is if hospital systems are flooded, the "normal" patients that need a hospital, wont be able to get help either.
Which again leads to more deaths.
Its still best if spread doesnt go faster than the hospitals can follow.
Even if your going for herd immunity.
----
African countries will eventually answear this question for you Naum.
Alot of them barely have any health system.
Some of them are more scared to starve to death than this virus, and dont see the point in trying to "bend the curve" (because hospital capacity is so small, it doesnt make any differnce) so their going for quick herd immunity, by mass spread, as their "only" option. So they can go back to work faster afterwards and not starve to death.
So a few months from now, we should know.
