3 ms·

> kill at least 10x more people in the US this year Since the Corona virus has a 3% mortality rate, your estimate of 'at least 10x' would mean 500,000 american

> kill at least 10x more people in the US this year Since the Corona virus has a 3% mortality rate, your estimate of 'at least 10x' would mean 500,000 american dead by the end of year, which would require 150,000,000 to be infected this year, or basically, 48%~ of the population getting infected this year. I'm not saying your wrong, but can you provide a link to a reputable site such as CDC/WHO that supports your claim?

lern_too_spel 7y ago
Unlike the flu, nobody has prior immunity to the disease, so everyone is susceptible to getting the disease. Without containment, nearly everyone will get the disease. You have also undercounted the US population by 10%.
- NicolasGorden 7y ago
  > Without containment, nearly everyone will get the disease You might be right in your claims. But can you provide me with any reputable sources to verify your claim?
  - lern_too_spel 7y ago
    This is pure logic. Nobody has to say it because the conclusion follows trivially. Which part of the deduction were you not able to follow?
    - NicolasGorden 7y ago
      You are absolutely right to ask if I'm not following. Sometimes I fail to follow. In terms of Pure logic, I'd love to learn about that one day. Anyway, deducting a conclusion from reality can be possible, though I'm not sure I agree trivial. I will say I think using statistical past experiences to model future outcomes without understanding underlying mechanisms of action would normally be consider inductive reasoning, not deductive. But even if you arrived at your conclusion using deductive reasoning you could still create a logically valid statement that is unsound. Which is why I ask, what were the original observations that allowed you to deduct that the infection rate will be near 100%.
      - lern_too_spel 7y ago
        I didn't capitalize pure logic. You did. Don't put words in my mouth. Clearly, I am using pure to mean "only" or "100%." We can deduce that the infection rate will be nearly 100% because there is no significant subpopulation that is isolated from the rest of the population. Without isolation, the infection spreads. See also: rhinovirus-based colds, which have infected 100% of the US population despite different people having prior immunity to different strains, slowing its spread.
        NicolasGorden 7y ago
        Thanks for your reference. I looked up Rhinovirus. According to wikipedia, it seems that: > 99 serotypes of human rhinoviruses affecting humans have been sequenced. Of which, one seems to be the most contagious: > The human Rhinovirus Strain 1A (which was at the time held responsible for at least 30 percent of the common cold infections) Since the 'cold' is something that about 10% of the population get, and since one strain of Rhinovirus once managed to account for 30% of common cold infections, it would stand to reason that the most infectious Rhinovirus managed to infect 3% of the population in a year. Please help me understand how that allows you to 'deduct' that COVID-19 will have a near 100% infection rate?
        lern_too_spel 7y ago
        How did you manage to ignore the entire part of my post about what slows the rate of Rhinovirus infections and why that doesn't apply to SARS-CoV-2? It is half of the entire sentence that talks about Rhinovirus.
        NicolasGorden 7y ago
        Oh I read your sentence. I didn't ignore it. I just don't see how one thing 'logically' follows another, let alone allows for a 'deduction'. I mean, I can see your sentence is a point that could be supportive of your argument. But to connect them like your doing, implying proof, is to make many assumptions which I don't see as necessarily true. For me you are not fulfilling the burden of proof that your assertion requires. Saying this will have a near 100% infection rate is an extraordinary claim, since I've not known of any single deadly virus that has achieve that. I won't continue since more fundamentally, I think you and I have a very, very different definition for what 'logic' and 'deduction' mean. To me these words, like the word ironic, have a very narrow definition that many people don't seem to conform to. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I do wish you the best and think we can all agree that we hope the new virus has the smallest possible toll on humanity. :)
Simon_says 7y ago
Half the population becoming infected this year is not that unlikely if no preventive measures are taken. The CDC and WHO stopped being reputable sites about a month ago.
- NicolasGorden 7y ago
  Ok, so then where did the stats come from? What is your reputable source of information if you think the CDC and WHO aren't reputable. I'm open to learning, maybe you can teach me.
  - claudeganon 7y ago
    The current rate of estimated infection doubling from genomic analysis is 7 days, absent containment measures and other interventions. Assume there are 1000 cases today and do the math. You get there pretty quick: https://bedford.io/blog/ncov-cryptic-transmission/ https://bedford.io/blog/ncov-cryptic-transmission/
    - NicolasGorden 7y ago
      > Half the population becoming infected this year is not that unlikely > where did the stats come from? Maybe I misread it, but your article does not corroborate the 50% infection of the US population.
      - lern_too_spel 7y ago
        Assuming a mortality rate of 1%, only 55 million people, or about 1/6 of the US population will need to be infected to reach 550k deaths directly from COVID-19. The 1/6 and 1% numbers are both conservative. Hence, at least 10x the flu. The indirect deaths will be larger still because 10x more will be hospitalized, which the medical infrastructure is not prepared to handle.
      - claudeganon 7y ago
        Apologies, I linked the wrong thing. This can be extrapolated from what the American Hospital Association is projecting: https://www.businessinsider.com/presentation-us-hospitals-preparing-for-millions-of-hospitalizations-2020-3 https://www.businessinsider.com/presentation-us-hospitals-pr... As the article also references, Marc Lipsitch at Harvard projects the same.
pcmonk 7y ago
You're off by an order of magnitude. 3% of 150m is 4.5m.
- NicolasGorden 7y ago
  Thanks. You are 100% right.
Bombthecat 7y ago
Wasnt someone from who or was it a German scientist? I forgot, but he basically excepts that 60 to 70 percent will be infected before it slows down.
- NicolasGorden 7y ago
  IF the WHO estimated 80% infection rates I would be very concerned and would not have written any of this. Please, if you have a WHO link that predicts what you mention, please share it with me.
  - Bombthecat 7y ago
    A yeah, was a specialist from Germany, Berlin hospital charité: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sueddeutsche.de/gesundheit/krankheiten-experte-erwartet-60-bis-70-prozent-infizierte-in-deutschland-dpa.urn-newsml-dpa-com-20090101-200228-99-108884!amp https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sueddeutsche.de/gesundheit/... Google translate should give you the jist.

lern_too_spel 7y ago

Unlike the flu, nobody has prior immunity to the disease, so everyone is susceptible to getting the disease. Without containment, nearly everyone will get the disease. You have also undercounted the US population by 10%.

NicolasGorden 7y ago
> Without containment, nearly everyone will get the disease You might be right in your claims. But can you provide me with any reputable sources to verify your claim?
- lern_too_spel 7y ago
  This is pure logic. Nobody has to say it because the conclusion follows trivially. Which part of the deduction were you not able to follow?
  - NicolasGorden 7y ago
    You are absolutely right to ask if I'm not following. Sometimes I fail to follow. In terms of Pure logic, I'd love to learn about that one day. Anyway, deducting a conclusion from reality can be possible, though I'm not sure I agree trivial. I will say I think using statistical past experiences to model future outcomes without understanding underlying mechanisms of action would normally be consider inductive reasoning, not deductive. But even if you arrived at your conclusion using deductive reasoning you could still create a logically valid statement that is unsound. Which is why I ask, what were the original observations that allowed you to deduct that the infection rate will be near 100%.
    - lern_too_spel 7y ago
      I didn't capitalize pure logic. You did. Don't put words in my mouth. Clearly, I am using pure to mean "only" or "100%." We can deduce that the infection rate will be nearly 100% because there is no significant subpopulation that is isolated from the rest of the population. Without isolation, the infection spreads. See also: rhinovirus-based colds, which have infected 100% of the US population despite different people having prior immunity to different strains, slowing its spread.
      - NicolasGorden 7y ago
        Thanks for your reference. I looked up Rhinovirus. According to wikipedia, it seems that: > 99 serotypes of human rhinoviruses affecting humans have been sequenced. Of which, one seems to be the most contagious: > The human Rhinovirus Strain 1A (which was at the time held responsible for at least 30 percent of the common cold infections) Since the 'cold' is something that about 10% of the population get, and since one strain of Rhinovirus once managed to account for 30% of common cold infections, it would stand to reason that the most infectious Rhinovirus managed to infect 3% of the population in a year. Please help me understand how that allows you to 'deduct' that COVID-19 will have a near 100% infection rate?
        lern_too_spel 7y ago
        How did you manage to ignore the entire part of my post about what slows the rate of Rhinovirus infections and why that doesn't apply to SARS-CoV-2? It is half of the entire sentence that talks about Rhinovirus.
        NicolasGorden 7y ago
        Oh I read your sentence. I didn't ignore it. I just don't see how one thing 'logically' follows another, let alone allows for a 'deduction'. I mean, I can see your sentence is a point that could be supportive of your argument. But to connect them like your doing, implying proof, is to make many assumptions which I don't see as necessarily true. For me you are not fulfilling the burden of proof that your assertion requires. Saying this will have a near 100% infection rate is an extraordinary claim, since I've not known of any single deadly virus that has achieve that. I won't continue since more fundamentally, I think you and I have a very, very different definition for what 'logic' and 'deduction' mean. To me these words, like the word ironic, have a very narrow definition that many people don't seem to conform to. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I do wish you the best and think we can all agree that we hope the new virus has the smallest possible toll on humanity. :)

Simon_says 7y ago

Half the population becoming infected this year is not that unlikely if no preventive measures are taken. The CDC and WHO stopped being reputable sites about a month ago.

NicolasGorden 7y ago
Ok, so then where did the stats come from? What is your reputable source of information if you think the CDC and WHO aren't reputable. I'm open to learning, maybe you can teach me.
- claudeganon 7y ago
  The current rate of estimated infection doubling from genomic analysis is 7 days, absent containment measures and other interventions. Assume there are 1000 cases today and do the math. You get there pretty quick: https://bedford.io/blog/ncov-cryptic-transmission/ https://bedford.io/blog/ncov-cryptic-transmission/
  - NicolasGorden 7y ago
    > Half the population becoming infected this year is not that unlikely > where did the stats come from? Maybe I misread it, but your article does not corroborate the 50% infection of the US population.
    - lern_too_spel 7y ago
      Assuming a mortality rate of 1%, only 55 million people, or about 1/6 of the US population will need to be infected to reach 550k deaths directly from COVID-19. The 1/6 and 1% numbers are both conservative. Hence, at least 10x the flu. The indirect deaths will be larger still because 10x more will be hospitalized, which the medical infrastructure is not prepared to handle.
    - claudeganon 7y ago
      Apologies, I linked the wrong thing. This can be extrapolated from what the American Hospital Association is projecting: https://www.businessinsider.com/presentation-us-hospitals-preparing-for-millions-of-hospitalizations-2020-3 https://www.businessinsider.com/presentation-us-hospitals-pr... As the article also references, Marc Lipsitch at Harvard projects the same.

pcmonk 7y ago

You're off by an order of magnitude. 3% of 150m is 4.5m.

NicolasGorden 7y ago
Thanks. You are 100% right.

Bombthecat 7y ago

Wasnt someone from who or was it a German scientist? I forgot, but he basically excepts that 60 to 70 percent will be infected before it slows down.

NicolasGorden 7y ago
IF the WHO estimated 80% infection rates I would be very concerned and would not have written any of this. Please, if you have a WHO link that predicts what you mention, please share it with me.
- Bombthecat 7y ago
  A yeah, was a specialist from Germany, Berlin hospital charité: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sueddeutsche.de/gesundheit/krankheiten-experte-erwartet-60-bis-70-prozent-infizierte-in-deutschland-dpa.urn-newsml-dpa-com-20090101-200228-99-108884!amp https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sueddeutsche.de/gesundheit/... Google translate should give you the jist.