3 ms·
I don’t think we’d stay locked down for so long. Even with the world on lockdown, the virus still spreads. Eventually I’d think we’d reach the 60–70% infected f
by ornornor 7y ago
I don’t think we’d stay locked down for so long. Even with the world on lockdown, the virus still spreads. Eventually I’d think we’d reach the 60–70% infected figure which is said to be enough for herd immunity. At that point and even without a vaccine it’s probably be safe to lift most or all restrictions while we’re looking for a vaccine. As I understand it the lockdowns are to avoid an unmanageable peak in hospital use, not to avoid most people getting the virus.
I wonder if China will strictly prohibit the hunting and eating of wild animals as a result from this outbreak and the considerable international pressure, or if it’ll keep going.
- guscost 7y agoYes, to be fair that seems to be the likely plan. It’s only crackpots like Bill Gates who are suggesting we go for the vaccine instead. Which, in his defense, might make sense to keep working on as a hedge.
- pasttense01 7y agoWell at 60%-70% infected you also reach the million dead figure.
- ornornor 7y agoOk, but gradually. If everyone gets it at the same time, people who would have normally made it would die because contention over the medical resources.
- kleton 7y ago马牛羊 鸡犬豕 此六畜 人所饲 Horse, ox, sheep, fowl, dog, pig These six animals are those which men keep
- loftyal 7y agoIsolation of the elderly and at-risk groups until either vaccine or herd immunity whilst increasing the stockpiles of PPE and ventilators seem like the only real strategy at the moment.
- rv-de 7y agoimmunization is not something your body obtains forever - might only be a few months. If the spread is too slow we'll never reach immunization. Instead the virus will take its rounds repeatedly infecting people. Also the 60/70% figure assumes an R0 of about 3. It seems though that it is >5. Then you would need a herd immunization of >80%.