3 ms·
Consider the odds conditional on: trying not to get it. Probably better than 30% if you’re not in a group that has to work outside the home. Maybe 50-60% odds
by graeme 7y ago
Consider the odds conditional on: trying not to get it. Probably better than 30% if you’re not in a group that has to work outside the home.
Maybe 50-60% odds of avoiding? Still high odds of getting it, but not so high that it’s inevitable.
- nradov 7y agoI don't think you have any real scientific basis for those numbers. I doubt most people can reduce their risk of infection to 50% unless they take extreme and unsustainable steps. Please state your assumptions and show your math.
- jacquesm 7y agoThe scientific basis is definitely there. Even the worst viral infections do not reach more than 70% of the population, and take decades to do so.
- graeme 7y agoIf 70% of people get it, you have a baseline risk of 30% of getting it. My assumption is that a sizeable fraction of people either: * Already got it * Don’t take hand washing seriously or do it wrong * Are bad at avoiding touching their face * Unnecessarily touch surfaces when out (i.e. door with hand, rather than sleeve/bag, whatever) * Don’t practice distancing well * Are in a job where they must interact with the public If you do all of the above correctly, my guess is you can raise your odds of avoiding from 30% to 50-60%. It’s not based on any math, but I don’t think there’s any definite math to base it on. I could be wrong in either direction. Nonetheless I think it’s sufficient to argue that it is not inevitable that and individual will get it and everyone should not even bother to avoid it.
- azemetre 7y agoI do nearly everything except distance well if I am forced back to work and have to take public transportation. I live in Boston and this is my fear. I avoid people now but I doubt much people can keep this sustained for 6-months.
- nradov 7y agoObviously current measures aren't sustainable for 6 months, or even 3 months.
- Syntonicles 7y agoI'm trying to understand your numbers and I'm hung up on what may just be a coincidence. You say if 70% of people get it, you have a baseline risk of 30% of getting it. Is that the normal way of phrasing risk? My expectation would be that there is a 30% chance of not getting it. Am I misreading your comment or is my definition of risk somehow backward?
- graeme 7y agoOops. Just a typo. I meant baseline chance of 30% of not getting it. So I figure, with precautions, you have a more than 30% chance of being in that 30%.