Too bad it's not the only thing dying if you do so.

It might not be a cure but it's definitely a creative way of stopping it from spreading.

Heh, yeah, the irony, those people on the beaches were actually just trying to stop any further spread.

Reminds me of this.

And it is the standard in every Zombie movie: kill the infected, before they spread the virus.

LOL. Well, this video was released in august last year, seems to have been a bit prophetic.

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.

R0 of 5.7 is based on Chinese data from late December to Januari 23rd (before the lock down), so take a grain of salt with that. They come to a doubling rate every 2.4 days for the early growth.

March 20 is when NY became serious about the lock down, which stops the exponential growth in its tracks.
According to the NY times, NY peaked on April 10th at about 10,000 reported cases a day.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/new-york-coronavirus-cases.html#county

Of course reported cases are a bit useless with these new estimates especially with the late to start testing.

But we can look at that doubling rate. To get to 2.7 million infected by April 1st (totally wild guess to avg lock down slowdown date to peak date) with unhampered spread,
50 days = 1.9 million
51 days = 2.5 million
52 days = 3.3 million
It doesn't matter that much, exponential growth goes fast on the upper end.
51 days before April 1st is start on Februari 10th.

So wild estimate and assuming NY was infected later than California (reasonable assumption) the R0 of 5.7 is somewhat possible with the 2.7 million (or 10x more infected than detected) estimate.

However people would have been aware earlier and been more cautious. Also that study that came to R0 of 5.7 warned it might be different in other countries, new year celebrations likely played a part in early transmission in Wuhan and since nobody knew of it yet, nobody was being careful yet. Plus there's the uncertainty in the early data.

The difference with the old R0 of 2.2 is huge, after 51 days you only get to 2.3K, 10 times less. Or you need 97 days to go from 1 to 2.5 million.
Also he doubling rate for reported deaths begs to differ
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104836/days-for-covid19-deaths-to-double-select-countries-worldwide/

Russia where it recently exploded and with decent numbers to put some trust in, is at a doubling rate of 5 days, in line with the old R0 of 2.2. A lot of countries have much higher doubling rates since that stat is a real time statistic (snap shot at Apr 19th) and the lock down measures already had an effect. In Russia however measures are just now starting to affect the death rate. And those with smaller doubling rates had few deaths reported. So Russia's number is as pure as it comes from that link.

Nothing from that link supports an R0 of 5.7 and doubling rate of 2.4 days, I wouldn't put all that much faith in that. It was based on Chinese data after all.


A doubling rate of 5 days, suppose there were 20 people infected mid Januari (15th), by March 20th there would have been 163.8K people infected.
March 25th 328K
March 30th 655K
Apr 04 1.3 Million
Apr 09 2.6 Million

However since March 20th it should have slowed down to a flat increase by Apr 10th since that was the peak. (of 10K, or at most 100K if 10x under reported)
Even with 20 infectious people walking around in the population on Januari 15th and taking the fastest doubling rate observed in reported deaths, it still seems unlikely 2.7 million people are already infected in New York.



But yeah, with R0 of 5.7, spread starting in mid Januari, even if only 1 person started it on Januari 15th, 142 million people would have been infected by March 20th in NY. Everyone would have had it by now.



That's the problem with all these different biased tests, different test criteria, different ways to count data. By now you can fit or disprove anything :/ The difference between R0 of 2.2 and 5.7 is so big you can make up anything you want...

So basically we only know less now :(

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.

I'm kinda surprised as well the CDC put this out.

A closer look at the data they used to get to that R0 5.7 estimate

We collected publicly available reports of 140 confirmed COVID-19 cases (mostly outside Hubei Province). These reports were published by the Chinese Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (China CDC) and provincial health commissions; accession dates were January 15–30, 2020 (Appendix 1 Table 1). Many of the individual reports were also published on the China CDC official website

How many red flags can you spot in that paragraph.....

Small sample size, early tests that weren't all that reliable, when you start testing you first find more cases since you're catching up, especially if trying to deny or downplay before then.

That fastest observed doubling rate in reported deaths of 4.6 days in Russia (170 deaths April 14th, 361 deaths April 19th) which matches the R0 of 2.2, is far more reliable than these 140 reported cases. The doubling rate for reported deaths yesterday was 6 days in Russia, slowing down now as well.

Imo, R0 of 5.7, not a chance.