4 ms·

Thanks for your reference. I looked up Rhinovirus. According to wikipedia, it seems that: > 99 serotypes of human rhinoviruses affecting humans have been seque

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. :)
  - lern_too_spel 7y ago
    > since I've not known of any single deadly virus that has achieve that The flu. I didn't say SARS-CoV-2 will achieve nearly 100% infection rate in a year, but over the lifetime of most young people today, certainly. In the next year, it will have infected enough people to dwarf the flu over that year, however much we hope against it. Specifically, what assumptions am I making that are erroneous?

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. :)
- lern_too_spel 7y ago
  > since I've not known of any single deadly virus that has achieve that The flu. I didn't say SARS-CoV-2 will achieve nearly 100% infection rate in a year, but over the lifetime of most young people today, certainly. In the next year, it will have infected enough people to dwarf the flu over that year, however much we hope against it. Specifically, what assumptions am I making that are erroneous?