3 ms·
The problem is the hospitalization rate is too high even for a younger population. If you could target even 2% hospitalized at 60% of population, you would sti
by usaar333 7y ago
The problem is the hospitalization rate is too high even for a younger population. If you could target even 2% hospitalized at 60% of population, you would still need >4+ years at current capacity to get through this. You'd also still lose 1/1000 lives (of younger people) which still is unacceptable.
Why is it guaranteed you need to get herd immunity? Can you not take the Singapore/SK route indefinitely - heavy contact tracing + mask wearing + limit mass groups to keep basic reproduction number under 1 indefinitely?
- lokedhs 7y agoI'm in Singapore, and I can assure you that although we're not locked down, no one wants this to last longer than it has to.
- usaar333 7y agoAgreed. But to the point above, is it better to have 5000 people under age 50 die or just keep the current regime (which will probably start emerging mostly as a ban on leaving the city) up for 18 months?
- hiram112 7y ago> You'd also still lose 1/1000 lives (of younger people) which still is unacceptable. I think if this goes on for months on end - kids stuck at homes, large events cancelled perpetually, the stock market headed further down, shortages in not just hand sanitizer but eventually even basics like fresh produce and grains, clothes, electronics, then that 1/1000 death rate won't be so unacceptable at all. Our society cannot just change like it would need to in order to keep the death rate as low as we'd wish.