12 ms·
Aside from being "over it", I think it's also that people are (correctly) perceiving their individual risk to be very low and acting accordingly. It's a bit of
by danenania 6y ago
Aside from being "over it", I think it's also that people are (correctly) perceiving their individual risk to be very low and acting accordingly.
It's a bit of a birthday paradox problem in that if you have large groups of people not social distancing in an area with pretty low prevalence like CA, the risk to any one person of contracting the virus could be extremely low, while the risk that some of those people will contract is extremely high.
Americans are, for better or worse, really not used to thinking in collectivist terms.
- SnowProblem 6y agoI like the birthday paradox analogy. Nassim Taleb, Black Swan author, has a paper on the same idea. https://www.academia.edu/42223846/Ethics_of_Precaution_Individual_and_Systemic_Risk https://www.academia.edu/42223846/Ethics_of_Precaution_Indiv....
- greedo 6y agoHerd immunity will require between 60-80% of the population to be infected. At the bottom end of that scale it's 198M people. The IFR is roughly between .1% and 1%. The range for these deaths will be 198K to 1.98M. Fatalities. Hospitalization is roughly 5%, so between 1M and 10M hospitalizations with unknown long term effects. Think of it this way; if 2/3rds need to become infected before this crap is over, don't you want to be in the 1/3 that doesn't risk death/hospitalization?
- nostrebored 6y agoStill, no. You're operating off of knowingly bad data and ignoring serological surveys (which are also pretty bad data at the moment).