5 ms·

People keep extrapolating that tens of millions will die, and I don't doubt that tens of millions surely would _if_ there were no lock-downs! (The subject of th

People keep extrapolating that tens of millions will die, and I don't doubt that tens of millions surely would _if_ there were no lock-downs! (The subject of this article!) The whole point of locking down Wuhan/Hubei and then northern Italy and now the whole country and other places and cancelling large public gatherings and events is that local, regional, and national authorities start seeing the numbers soaring and initiate extreme mitigation strategies. We don't know how successful these strategies will be individually/collectively in the long run but if China is anything to go by it can severely retard the spread of the virus. To show I'm not spouting out of my derriere compare the logarithmic infection and death rates of China[1] and Italy[2] So you have to modify your formula: `7.8 billion * 0.6 * 0.03 * mitigation_factor = ?` We just don't know what the mitigation_factor is yet and because the spread is exponential any dent in the rate of spread brings the fatality number tumbling down[3]. I happen to believe this virus is a very serious global threat and I assure you that I am not one given to alarmism. But I also have never seen governments respond to the onset of an epidemic like this before and I'm nearly fifty and my mother says she can't remember anything like this in her lifetime. So yes, tens of millions absolutely could die but I'm willing to bet that between lock-downs and modern medicine tens of millions won't and I pray to, you know, $deity I am not wrong. [1] https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/china/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/china/ [2] https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/italy/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/italy/ [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kas0tIxDvrg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kas0tIxDvrg [Exponential growth and epidemics]

senordevnyc 7y ago
This is impossible to contain. The purpose of the lockdown isn't to contain, it's just to spread out the infections over a larger period of time so that hospitals don't get overwhelmed. But there's likely not a plausible scenario at this point where we globally jump on this and only a few million or even tens of millions are infected. All we can do is slow it down.
- igravious 7y ago
  China has demonstrated that it is in fact possible to contain the spread. Please use the links I provided to review the data. Do remember that the Chinese built two make-shift hospitals in something like 10 days. Once a couple of weeks pass we'll see if Italy is able to replicate what China did. Here are my calculations based on current data[1]: Country tot. deaths pop. (1m) tot. deaths/1m pop. Italy 463 62 7.46 Iran 237 83 2.85 China 3120 1384 2.25 South Korea 53 51 1.03 Spain 30 49 0.61 France 30 67 0.44 USA 26 329 0.08 Italy has blown past China which is why they've locked down the country. Iran will surely do so next if they are not already doing so unless they want a national calamity. South Korea reacted quicker. Spain, France, will have to act next, possibly next week or the week after, the USA will have to act in about 3 or 4 weeks assuming things remain the same but by that time it'll be early April and the weather will be getting warmer so who knows. [1] https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
  - senordevnyc 7y ago
    China’s current status is impressive but it’s come at enormous cost which is unsustainable in the long run. And it’s unclear what’s going to happen in the long run as China opens up workplaces and public gatherings, and as international travel and commerce resumes. It may very well explode again. Some countries will get a handle on this for now, but many won’t, and it will continue to spread globally. It might take months, it might take years, but it’s not going away.
    - igravious 7y ago
      People can do great things when needed. Who says it is unsustainable? Can we not change our habits? Can we not provide the equipment and supplies (respirators, medicines, masks, disinfectant and sanitizers) that need providing? With any luck we'll have a vaccine in 18 to 24 months. The flu season is halted by warmer weather. We can change our behaviour for a few years until we get it under control.
adventured 7y ago
There is cause for optimism in the numbers out of South Korea and China. Even assuming China has lied about their numbers (population ratios with Italy and South Korea vs China make that plainly clear, they lied to a large degree on the numbers), if China has managed to bring it under control through their extreme quarantine measures, then we can prevent it from killing tens of millions. South Korea seems to have considerably slowed it there. Japan has done a good job of limiting its spread. China has 1.4 billion people, and they've had ~3,000 deaths (let's assume it's several times higher in reality). But we'll see tens of millions dead globally? No we will not. If you killed every person that has been infected in China, and extrapolated that event globally, we would not see tens of millions dead. So that premise is absurd, to an extreme. I consider this to be a very serious situation, however, it's not very serious as a great mass mortality threat (unless it mutates and becomes far more deadly and we prove unable to slow it down or vaccinate against it). It's a serious threat for massive disruption to our daily lives, including severely harming the global economy. It's a serious threat to swamping our healthcare systems due to ICU demands and diverting our resources to managing the ongoing crisis (instead of routine, normal productive work). Assuming this isn't going to burn out come Spring & Summer, the next step is to rush to vaccine, at any cost. That will end this thing globally. Maybe we'll need to vaccinate against it annually, maybe it won't come back after this year, who knows of course. Tens of millions will not die. Tens of thousands might die in the plausible worst case scenario, before we get a vaccine ready. We can rush to vaccine at greater patient risk and financial cost, as necessary.
- igravious 7y ago
  Thoughtful and level-headed response. :) We might ballpark the number of global deaths – in the optimistic case† at between 20,000 and 30,000 souls. Not a global tragedy, on a scale of the recent Ebola outbreak, but warranting much more drastic action. There's a huge sense of urgency. We could have a vaccine before the next flu season in the northern hemisphere. † assuming not every country acts quickly when the time comes nor acts as effectively as China
  - airstrike 7y ago
    > We could have a vaccine before the next flu season in the northern hemisphere. That's quite unlikely. We're looking at 12-18 months if everything goes perfectly according to plan and we get it right on the first try. > nor acts as effectively as China Only if you take China's numbers at face value, which nobody really seems keen on doing.
jpster 7y ago
I’m not sure about the overall efficacy of lockdowns unless: - The US plays along. We are likely a hotspot now, whether we go the “undertest and live in ignorance” route, or not. - We have an effective plan for rebooting out of the lockdown. Which, until we have an effective treatment or vaccine, to me means temperature scanning in most public places imaginable, continued vigilance around disinfecting, continued limits on public gatherings, and more.
- igravious 7y ago
  From what the numbers are saying it looks like the USA is both under-testing and over-reporting simultaneously. Very odd state of affairs. I'm ignoring the total cases number from the USA at present because it is a clear outlier. The # of deaths is much more reliable but that number will lag as tests are performed. (The # of deaths for Germany is suspiciously low, as is the # of deaths for S. Korea.) I actually think the Chinese data is fairly accurate. the Iranian data, well, who knows. I'd like to think the European data is reliable, but again, who knows. If the USA becomes a hot-spot then other countries will undoubtedly institute a travel ban to/from there like is happening with parts of China, S. Korea, Italy, Iran, and so on.

senordevnyc 7y ago

This is impossible to contain. The purpose of the lockdown isn't to contain, it's just to spread out the infections over a larger period of time so that hospitals don't get overwhelmed. But there's likely not a plausible scenario at this point where we globally jump on this and only a few million or even tens of millions are infected. All we can do is slow it down.

igravious 7y ago
China has demonstrated that it is in fact possible to contain the spread. Please use the links I provided to review the data. Do remember that the Chinese built two make-shift hospitals in something like 10 days. Once a couple of weeks pass we'll see if Italy is able to replicate what China did. Here are my calculations based on current data[1]: Country tot. deaths pop. (1m) tot. deaths/1m pop. Italy 463 62 7.46 Iran 237 83 2.85 China 3120 1384 2.25 South Korea 53 51 1.03 Spain 30 49 0.61 France 30 67 0.44 USA 26 329 0.08 Italy has blown past China which is why they've locked down the country. Iran will surely do so next if they are not already doing so unless they want a national calamity. South Korea reacted quicker. Spain, France, will have to act next, possibly next week or the week after, the USA will have to act in about 3 or 4 weeks assuming things remain the same but by that time it'll be early April and the weather will be getting warmer so who knows. [1] https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
- senordevnyc 7y ago
  China’s current status is impressive but it’s come at enormous cost which is unsustainable in the long run. And it’s unclear what’s going to happen in the long run as China opens up workplaces and public gatherings, and as international travel and commerce resumes. It may very well explode again. Some countries will get a handle on this for now, but many won’t, and it will continue to spread globally. It might take months, it might take years, but it’s not going away.
  - igravious 7y ago
    People can do great things when needed. Who says it is unsustainable? Can we not change our habits? Can we not provide the equipment and supplies (respirators, medicines, masks, disinfectant and sanitizers) that need providing? With any luck we'll have a vaccine in 18 to 24 months. The flu season is halted by warmer weather. We can change our behaviour for a few years until we get it under control.

adventured 7y ago

There is cause for optimism in the numbers out of South Korea and China. Even assuming China has lied about their numbers (population ratios with Italy and South Korea vs China make that plainly clear, they lied to a large degree on the numbers), if China has managed to bring it under control through their extreme quarantine measures, then we can prevent it from killing tens of millions. South Korea seems to have considerably slowed it there. Japan has done a good job of limiting its spread. China has 1.4 billion people, and they've had ~3,000 deaths (let's assume it's several times higher in reality). But we'll see tens of millions dead globally? No we will not. If you killed every person that has been infected in China, and extrapolated that event globally, we would not see tens of millions dead. So that premise is absurd, to an extreme. I consider this to be a very serious situation, however, it's not very serious as a great mass mortality threat (unless it mutates and becomes far more deadly and we prove unable to slow it down or vaccinate against it). It's a serious threat for massive disruption to our daily lives, including severely harming the global economy. It's a serious threat to swamping our healthcare systems due to ICU demands and diverting our resources to managing the ongoing crisis (instead of routine, normal productive work). Assuming this isn't going to burn out come Spring & Summer, the next step is to rush to vaccine, at any cost. That will end this thing globally. Maybe we'll need to vaccinate against it annually, maybe it won't come back after this year, who knows of course. Tens of millions will not die. Tens of thousands might die in the plausible worst case scenario, before we get a vaccine ready. We can rush to vaccine at greater patient risk and financial cost, as necessary.

igravious 7y ago
Thoughtful and level-headed response. :) We might ballpark the number of global deaths – in the optimistic case† at between 20,000 and 30,000 souls. Not a global tragedy, on a scale of the recent Ebola outbreak, but warranting much more drastic action. There's a huge sense of urgency. We could have a vaccine before the next flu season in the northern hemisphere. † assuming not every country acts quickly when the time comes nor acts as effectively as China
- airstrike 7y ago
  > We could have a vaccine before the next flu season in the northern hemisphere. That's quite unlikely. We're looking at 12-18 months if everything goes perfectly according to plan and we get it right on the first try. > nor acts as effectively as China Only if you take China's numbers at face value, which nobody really seems keen on doing.

jpster 7y ago

I’m not sure about the overall efficacy of lockdowns unless: - The US plays along. We are likely a hotspot now, whether we go the “undertest and live in ignorance” route, or not. - We have an effective plan for rebooting out of the lockdown. Which, until we have an effective treatment or vaccine, to me means temperature scanning in most public places imaginable, continued vigilance around disinfecting, continued limits on public gatherings, and more.

igravious 7y ago
From what the numbers are saying it looks like the USA is both under-testing and over-reporting simultaneously. Very odd state of affairs. I'm ignoring the total cases number from the USA at present because it is a clear outlier. The # of deaths is much more reliable but that number will lag as tests are performed. (The # of deaths for Germany is suspiciously low, as is the # of deaths for S. Korea.) I actually think the Chinese data is fairly accurate. the Iranian data, well, who knows. I'd like to think the European data is reliable, but again, who knows. If the USA becomes a hot-spot then other countries will undoubtedly institute a travel ban to/from there like is happening with parts of China, S. Korea, Italy, Iran, and so on.