4 ms·

Probably not. This stuff isn't randomly distributed. Many people will not see anyone in their close network suffer from this. Many others will see almost everyo

• wpietri 6y ago
  Exactly. I know a few people affected, but not nearly the correct proportion. Most of the people I know, like me, have jobs that can be done remotely. That's unsurprising given how many of our social connections come through work. Especially for those of us who live somewhere other than where we grew up.
• IkmoIkmo 6y ago
  Yeah I've noticed this as well. For me, it's zero. For a colleague of mine, 6 friends/family died. What I'm very curious about is the impact of super-spreader events. There's some indication that say 10% of activities are responsible for 90% of the infections, e.g. a football stadium, a concert etc. What I wonder is, what does the distribution look like? 1% of activities cause 90% of cases, or 30/70? And then, what happens to the R0 / infection rate, if you can ban/restrict those high-impact activities in particular? Does the coronavirus then start to mimic the impact of a much more benign issue such as the flu? Or would the effect be minimal, and does that mean that a second wave around august and follow-up lockdown is basically guaranteed? That to me is what everything is banking on, with a vaccine 9-18 months away, markets will be butchered if we get a second wave+lockdown. If that doesn't happen, then unemployment figures / markets will probably recover relatively quickly given the relatively decent economic fundamentals going into this crisis, and the unprecedented government / central bank support packages.