4 ms·
A certain CNBC correspondent suggested as much: > But maybe we’d be just better off if we gave it to everybody, and then in a month it would be over because th
by TAForObvReasons 7y ago
A certain CNBC correspondent suggested as much:
> But maybe we’d be just better off if we gave it to everybody, and then in a month it would be over because the mortality rate of this probably isn’t going to be any different if we did it that way than the long-term picture, but the difference is we’re wreaking havoc on global and domestic economies
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/cnbcs-rick-santelli-suggests-giving-everyone-coronavirus-to-spare-the-economy-2020-03-05 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/cnbcs-rick-santelli-sugges...
- rogerkirkness 7y agoUnfortunately the current rates are based on people (mostly) having access to forced respiration devices. 1/5 people who get Covid require external oxygen...
- mygo 7y agoThis is absolutely false and yet another reason why journalists shouldn’t play epidemiology. Mitigating the rate of spread leads to less deaths overall. If everyone got it at the same time, there wouldn’t be enough healthcare system capacity to handle it. This isn’t a new concept, it’s well-known within epidemiology. Cities with early interventions in the 1918 flu epidemic had 50% lower peak death rates. If everyone got it at once, many more people would die than if the same number of people got it over a longer period of time. The following is my speculation, but if we woke up tomorrow and everyone suddenly had the coronavirus, then the economy would be in much bigger trouble than it would be with a slower rate of infection.