3 ms·

Okay, so on mobile and I’ve already talked too much in this thread so I won’t go in-depth, but you need to read the paper that this thread is about. Your estima

Okay, so on mobile and I’ve already talked too much in this thread so I won’t go in-depth, but you need to read the paper that this thread is about. Your estimates of the HIT are way too high because you are not accounting for the proportion of the population that is immune to COVID-19 infection despite never having come into contact with a SARS-type virus. Also instead of saying “based on coronaviruses in general” you should just say “based on the basic reproduction number”. Anyway even if HIT were 65-90% my argument is the same. But the fact that you gave that 65-80% estimate means you don’t understand the math. Factor in the preexisting t cell cross reactivity. Factor in heterogenous susceptibility (risk of infection even controlling for # of exposure events/social interactions varies heavily in the population, for example old people are much more likely to get infected) TL;DR: you need to do more background reading and update your priors. you’re operating in very stale info. I also think you’ve failed to understand my general argument outlined across this thread but I’m too tired to repeat it so I’d urge you to re-read the comments where I outline my case

hcknwscommenter 6y ago
TL;DR: you are wrong. There is some tantalizing evidence that maybe just maybe there might possibly be some degree of latent t cell cross reactivity. This is not actionable information, because it very well could be false. "based on the basic reproduction number" is total nonsense. I am not basing anything on the basic reproduction number. I don't even know what you are even referring to here. I understand the math just fine. It is you who keep doing the math wrong. You are "factoring in" 3 different variables, each of which are controversial and may not even exist at all. Then you are taking the most optimistic scenario for each one of these variables, compounding your bad math three times over. Your argument is even more murderous if HIT is 65%. 65% of 7.5 billion people is 5 billion. IFR of 0.3% (which you admittedly completely made up) is 14 million dead? I'm on mobile but I think that's right. You want to kill 14 million people. Even though Japan, S. Korea, Singapore, Canada, Taiwan, Germany, Italy, Spain, heck arguably even NYC right now have proven that this can be controlled.

hcknwscommenter 6y ago

TL;DR: you are wrong. There is some tantalizing evidence that maybe just maybe there might possibly be some degree of latent t cell cross reactivity. This is not actionable information, because it very well could be false. "based on the basic reproduction number" is total nonsense. I am not basing anything on the basic reproduction number. I don't even know what you are even referring to here. I understand the math just fine. It is you who keep doing the math wrong. You are "factoring in" 3 different variables, each of which are controversial and may not even exist at all. Then you are taking the most optimistic scenario for each one of these variables, compounding your bad math three times over. Your argument is even more murderous if HIT is 65%. 65% of 7.5 billion people is 5 billion. IFR of 0.3% (which you admittedly completely made up) is 14 million dead? I'm on mobile but I think that's right. You want to kill 14 million people. Even though Japan, S. Korea, Singapore, Canada, Taiwan, Germany, Italy, Spain, heck arguably even NYC right now have proven that this can be controlled.