8 ms·

It's fair to assume that everyone will get this, and 2.5% will die. (Edit: when I said everyone, I'm thinking of 'everyone' with regards to contagion like the

It's fair to assume that everyone will get this, and 2.5% will die. (Edit: when I said everyone, I'm thinking of 'everyone' with regards to contagion like the normal flu that goes around. There are always outliers and people who miss it. Didn't think I had to spell that one out. Evidently I did.) However controlling the rate of infection (coefficient of the exponent) can make the difference between hospitals able to handle the disease, versus hospitals getting completely flooded and having more die due to not enough care. Tl;dr. You're going to get it, but you don't want everyone getting it at once.

ghostbrainalpha 7y ago
I hope your wrong. That the spread is somewhat contained and that a vaccine is developed before 2.5% of us die. But I hope that someone in government is thinking like this and taking actions accordingly. Being pessimistic isn't and overshooting your precautions is probably smarter than thinking we are going to have a "cure" in a few weeks, like POTUS said.
- crankylinuxuser 7y ago
  Anecdotally, I know 2 MDs in the Layfayette, IN (Purdue) area. Multiple people have come in with 100% of the symptoms, recently came from Seattle, and 1 worked in the Amazon factory with positive coronavirus. They were not tested because the tests are not available. Because of the way 'We' (royal) have structured our economy and govt assistance systems, the working poor will have the highest contagion rates and serve to spread it rapidly. They have meager insurance, if any at all. They have no sick days, and certainly not paid sick leave. And being threatened to come to work sick is a common thing. Even Starbucks did that to me. And from what I know about the laws, I don't believe quarantines can legally order you in. Everything so far has been a suggested self-quarantine. I don't paint a pretty picture. That's because I've worked in food service while sick. I made your food, and infected you. I chose to do that vs be destitute.
irrational 7y ago
Why are you being downvoted? Is this the equivalent of people sticking their hands over their ears and saying “la la la la! I can’t hear you!” It seems obvious that you are right that everyone will get it. The real quibble is what will the death rate actually be. 2.5% seems like a middle-of-the-road estimate according to current knowledge.
- ksdale 7y ago
  I don't think it's obvious at all that everyone will get it, especially now that so many people are practicing social distancing and handwashing and avoiding gatherings. Yes, there are still a lot of people going about their lives without worry, but it seems totally plausible to me that if some percentage of people behave more responsibly, it will decrease R0 to some number below 1. I think using simple exponential numbers to predict future cases is too simplistic if we don't take into account how people's changing behavior will affect the spread.
  - irrational 7y ago
    I guess it depends on where you live. In the city where I live I have seen absolutely 0 changes in behavior. All gatherings are going on as normal, no special social distancing. There are lots of jokes about it (we probably shouldn't shake hands, ha ha! [still shake hands]), but nobody is actually doing anything differently.
    - ksdale 7y ago
      I've seen that same thing! But I live about an hour away from Seattle, and I'm generally seeing way fewer people shake hands and several people I know (my family included) are avoiding unnecessary trips into public. I mostly just wonder where the threshold is between population density and social distancing and R0. Obviously total quarantine does wonders, and completely normal behavior is terrible, but is it enough if half the population takes precautions? Or 2/3 or 1/3? I've been thinking of it kind of like a graph or a web, and if you cut enough of the connections, the spread stops, and "enough" isn't anything like "all," and the more strategically placed the cuts are, the fewer there can be, but it's not easy to figure out exactly how many cuts you need.
empath75 7y ago
I think _if nothing is done_ everyone will get this virus. However, I think the lesson of china and italy is that when hospitals get overwhelmed, people will freak out and start staying home, so the rate of infection in a 'burn out' scenario is probably significantly lower than even 30 or 40%.
api_or_ipa 7y ago
I'd amend your post further to say that the mortality rate ∝ rate of infection b/c the more attention healthcare staff can give to each infected person, the greater their likelihood of survival will be. In addition, the illness vastly affects a subset of the population more than others, should we be able to isolate the young and elderly so that we have fewer of those cases to treat, we have a good chance at lowering the mortality rate.

ghostbrainalpha 7y ago

I hope your wrong. That the spread is somewhat contained and that a vaccine is developed before 2.5% of us die. But I hope that someone in government is thinking like this and taking actions accordingly. Being pessimistic isn't and overshooting your precautions is probably smarter than thinking we are going to have a "cure" in a few weeks, like POTUS said.

crankylinuxuser 7y ago
Anecdotally, I know 2 MDs in the Layfayette, IN (Purdue) area. Multiple people have come in with 100% of the symptoms, recently came from Seattle, and 1 worked in the Amazon factory with positive coronavirus. They were not tested because the tests are not available. Because of the way 'We' (royal) have structured our economy and govt assistance systems, the working poor will have the highest contagion rates and serve to spread it rapidly. They have meager insurance, if any at all. They have no sick days, and certainly not paid sick leave. And being threatened to come to work sick is a common thing. Even Starbucks did that to me. And from what I know about the laws, I don't believe quarantines can legally order you in. Everything so far has been a suggested self-quarantine. I don't paint a pretty picture. That's because I've worked in food service while sick. I made your food, and infected you. I chose to do that vs be destitute.

irrational 7y ago

Why are you being downvoted? Is this the equivalent of people sticking their hands over their ears and saying “la la la la! I can’t hear you!” It seems obvious that you are right that everyone will get it. The real quibble is what will the death rate actually be. 2.5% seems like a middle-of-the-road estimate according to current knowledge.

ksdale 7y ago
I don't think it's obvious at all that everyone will get it, especially now that so many people are practicing social distancing and handwashing and avoiding gatherings. Yes, there are still a lot of people going about their lives without worry, but it seems totally plausible to me that if some percentage of people behave more responsibly, it will decrease R0 to some number below 1. I think using simple exponential numbers to predict future cases is too simplistic if we don't take into account how people's changing behavior will affect the spread.
- irrational 7y ago
  I guess it depends on where you live. In the city where I live I have seen absolutely 0 changes in behavior. All gatherings are going on as normal, no special social distancing. There are lots of jokes about it (we probably shouldn't shake hands, ha ha! [still shake hands]), but nobody is actually doing anything differently.
  - ksdale 7y ago
    I've seen that same thing! But I live about an hour away from Seattle, and I'm generally seeing way fewer people shake hands and several people I know (my family included) are avoiding unnecessary trips into public. I mostly just wonder where the threshold is between population density and social distancing and R0. Obviously total quarantine does wonders, and completely normal behavior is terrible, but is it enough if half the population takes precautions? Or 2/3 or 1/3? I've been thinking of it kind of like a graph or a web, and if you cut enough of the connections, the spread stops, and "enough" isn't anything like "all," and the more strategically placed the cuts are, the fewer there can be, but it's not easy to figure out exactly how many cuts you need.

empath75 7y ago

I think _if nothing is done_ everyone will get this virus. However, I think the lesson of china and italy is that when hospitals get overwhelmed, people will freak out and start staying home, so the rate of infection in a 'burn out' scenario is probably significantly lower than even 30 or 40%.

api_or_ipa 7y ago

I'd amend your post further to say that the mortality rate ∝ rate of infection b/c the more attention healthcare staff can give to each infected person, the greater their likelihood of survival will be. In addition, the illness vastly affects a subset of the population more than others, should we be able to isolate the young and elderly so that we have fewer of those cases to treat, we have a good chance at lowering the mortality rate.