3 ms·

> This is an inacurrate estimation. Sure, the actual number will likely be different for each country / state / city, but doesn't really matter for the sake of

> This is an inacurrate estimation. Sure, the actual number will likely be different for each country / state / city, but doesn't really matter for the sake of the argument. I was using 1% as a lowball number. Official mortality rate from the WHO is 3-4%; some studies say 2%, Italy is reporting 7%. And for those 80+, current data suggests a mortality rate of 1/7 - not far off from a round of Russian roulette. So if you have 4 grandparents who are 80+, there's a ~60% chance at least one will die if the disease spreads through our population in the next few months. > The mortality is mainly for 70+ years old people, who are already not in the workforce anymore. Firstly, if hospitals are overrun (which is the way we're headed), people of all ages will die preventable deaths. Hospitals in the US are already postponing elective surgeries. Secondly, it's simply not true that older people don't contribute to the economy. The elderly still consume food, housing, health care etc., and a negative demand shock is a recipe for recession. For example, think about what happens to nursing homes or physical therapists if a large percentage of older people die. Or what happens to local housing prices if lots of homes are suddenly put up for sale because elderly owners died en masse. And many older people continue to work and volunteer (e.g. just look at our president, congressmen, and senators), and that some grandparents help with child care (like in my family right now). Sources: - https://time.com/5798168/coronavirus-mortality-rate/ https://time.com/5798168/coronavirus-mortality-rate/ - https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/lamvo/coronavirus-death-rates-age-charts-us-china https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/lamvo/coronavirus-death... - https://nypost.com/2020/03/12/heres-why-the-coronavirus-death-rate-is-so-high-in-italy/ https://nypost.com/2020/03/12/heres-why-the-coronavirus-deat... - https://www.economicshelp.org/macroeconomics/economic-growth/cause-recession2/ https://www.economicshelp.org/macroeconomics/economic-growth...

psychlops 7y ago
Here's a quote from the first link you have: "That means the total number of reported cases is very likely an underestimate—and by not counting many mild or asymptomatic cases, we’re likely overestimating the disease’s overall mortality rate." It is not possible to know the mortality rate with the information we have. Extrapolating that dubious number into a prediction of deaths is not a meaningful exercise.
- disgruntledphd2 7y ago
  To be fair, they are using 1% which is an underestimate given what we know right now. In general, with exponential growth the best time to act was yesterday.
  - psychlops 7y ago
    The only reliable number are deaths assuming people aren't hiding (or burning) the bodies. The number of tests are reliable among themselves, but we can't necessarily compare specificity and sensitivity of the tests against each other. Maybe those numbers are out there, but i haven't seen them. The amount of infected is not and will not ever be known and it's a dark time for statistics when many are taking the non-randomly tested and dividing by fatalities and projecting deaths on large populations. Exponential growth is how successful infections progress. There is nothing new to see here. This sort of aggressive strain was easily foreseeable years ago and we rely on strategic, planned measures to be executed by government. Random, localized shutdowns only serve to exacerbate the unwarranted panic we are now seeing. The time to think was years in the coming, the actions now display an enormous failure in leadership.

psychlops 7y ago

Here's a quote from the first link you have: "That means the total number of reported cases is very likely an underestimate—and by not counting many mild or asymptomatic cases, we’re likely overestimating the disease’s overall mortality rate." It is not possible to know the mortality rate with the information we have. Extrapolating that dubious number into a prediction of deaths is not a meaningful exercise.

disgruntledphd2 7y ago
To be fair, they are using 1% which is an underestimate given what we know right now. In general, with exponential growth the best time to act was yesterday.
- psychlops 7y ago
  The only reliable number are deaths assuming people aren't hiding (or burning) the bodies. The number of tests are reliable among themselves, but we can't necessarily compare specificity and sensitivity of the tests against each other. Maybe those numbers are out there, but i haven't seen them. The amount of infected is not and will not ever be known and it's a dark time for statistics when many are taking the non-randomly tested and dividing by fatalities and projecting deaths on large populations. Exponential growth is how successful infections progress. There is nothing new to see here. This sort of aggressive strain was easily foreseeable years ago and we rely on strategic, planned measures to be executed by government. Random, localized shutdowns only serve to exacerbate the unwarranted panic we are now seeing. The time to think was years in the coming, the actions now display an enormous failure in leadership.