3 ms·
I think the 60–70% is a misquote. The original is in German, but I can't say what it means exactly. They are currently at 0.0000175%. I think it's more a warn
by mikorym 7y ago
I think the 60–70% is a misquote.
The original is in German, but I can't say what it means exactly. They are currently at 0.0000175%.
I think it's more a warning that an "estimate".
- mtsr 7y agoThis virus is so easily transmitted that one needs a significant percentage of the population to be resistant before new epidemics won’t happen every time it is reintroduced. So 60-70%. With a little luck there’s a still larger group of asymptotic infections, because otherwise we are going to have to put up with large numbers of ICU patients for a long time.
- JanSt 7y agoThe estimate is from Prof. Drosten of the Charité in Berlin, a highly regarded virologe. His lab developed the first diagnostic corona test. Before that they also developed the tests for SARS, Zika and MERS.
- mikorym 7y agoMeaning that they are quoting from steady states in a model that uses differential equations. I am saying that the news article is misquoting the science. Merkel didn't make a prediction, she made a comment about epidemiology.
- hatenberg 7y agoIt's not - 70% percent as an upper bound is a function of herd immunity kicking in.
- mikorym 7y agoYes, but as the upper bound for the whole of Germany or for a part of Germany? That is what the issue is about. In terms of likeliness for this is accurate. The chances of the whole of Germany being the improper subset here is the issue. My point is that they make it sound like a prediction. Edit: My point is that this is science about epidemiology, it's not a prediction.