4 ms·

What does "extremely high survival rate" mean? Around 0.5% of people who get this virus die. For a highly transmissible virus, that's incredibly scary. It means

What does "extremely high survival rate" mean? Around 0.5% of people who get this virus die. For a highly transmissible virus, that's incredibly scary. It means that left unchecked, around a million people will die in the US alone. That's a massive public health issue. Requiring people to accept a safe vaccine is completely reasonable and proportionate. > elderly people who've already exceeded the average life expectancy Letting hundreds of thousands of people (in the US alone) with easily a decade left to live die of a preventable disease is not ethical. What you're writing sounds extremely callous.

WildParser 6y ago
Not all people are going to get infected. One result of the Heinsberg study in Germany was that living together with an infected person only resulted in ~43% chance of infection. With more people living together the chance even went down to 18%. Also the numbers of Covid-19 are mainly following a Gompertz model - like a seasonal virus that starts big and then fizzles. The high R-Values people talked about in the beginning aren't a real thing. Michael Levitt in the beginning already calculated the outbreak in China perfectly. He made good Videos to explain the basic math. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCgPf1SuPNY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCgPf1SuPNY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uw2ZTaiN97k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uw2ZTaiN97k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aHrx68IT7o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aHrx68IT7o Maybe take a look at some f'/f in a logchart... It's easy to do - just look at death per day/total. Some countries are easy to model (e.g. Germany) - US is difficult with policies and outbreaks coming from different sides, ... - but some states are not that difficult to understand)
- DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
  > One result of the Heinsberg study in Germany was that living together with an infected person only resulted in ~43% chance of infection. If you're living in an area where the virus is circulating, you are likely to eventually be exposed many times. Getting lucky once is not enough. > like a seasonal virus that starts big and then fizzles. The high R-Values people talked about in the beginning aren't a real thing. They're absolutely real. Seasonal viruses come back every year, so if this is like the flu, then we have to worry about another major wave in the fall. Epidemics can slow down for two reasons: * Increasing immunity. Herd immunity is a long way off in most places in the world. Even places that had some of the worst outbreaks, like NY city, have only had ~20% infection rates. * People change their behavior, causing R to decrease. Social distancing, mask-wearing, enforced lockdowns, quarantining of infected people, quarantining of exposed people - these can all lead to slower spread of the virus. > Michael Levitt in the beginning already calculated the outbreak in China perfectly. The epidemic was suppressed in China through a massive government and societal response. It would have been far worse if there had been no reaction. Because of the reaction, most of the country was spared the experience that Wuhan had. If all containment measures were to end today, the epidemic would flare up again and millions of people would die over the next several months. The only way to permanently dampen the outbreak is to achieve a high level of immunity. That can either be through a vaccine, in which case almost nobody will die, or it can be through herd immunity, in which case many millions of people will die worldwide.
  - anoncake 6y ago
    > If you're living in an area where the virus is circulating, you are likely to eventually be exposed many times. Getting lucky once is not enough. It's not about how often you're exposed to the virus but about how long and how intensely. Living with someone is pretty much the worst case.
stonemetal12 6y ago
Where did you get your 0.5% from? According to Johns Hopkins in the UK more than 15% of those who get it die, for the US it is 3.7%. The link says those numbers were updated this morning so they are current. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality
- hatsunearu 6y ago
  That percentage being higher only helps that guy's argument though
  - stonemetal12 6y ago
    I don't mind if it does or it doesn't. I haven't seen a source for the 0.5%, everything I had seen had higher numbers, so I thought I would ask. But remember kids, not knowing, being curious, and asking questions is frowned upon on HN.
- Apfel 6y ago
  15% of those who test positive die. Most infected people are unlikely to be tested in the UK unless they are admitted to hospital.
- jbritton 6y ago
  There is “case fatality rate” and there is “infected fatality rate”. The CDC has estimated the IFR, but the value varies based on assumptions. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/5269331002 https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/5269331002
- cm2187 6y ago
  How can you still push lies like that? The mortality rate is nowhere near 15%. Rather within 1%. Case fatality ratio is a ratio to confirmed cases, which in a country where people have been told to stay at home if they are sick and not get tested for most of the peak of the pandemic is a massive underestimation of “people who get it”. Spreading false information like that is irresponsible.

WildParser 6y ago

Not all people are going to get infected. One result of the Heinsberg study in Germany was that living together with an infected person only resulted in ~43% chance of infection. With more people living together the chance even went down to 18%. Also the numbers of Covid-19 are mainly following a Gompertz model - like a seasonal virus that starts big and then fizzles. The high R-Values people talked about in the beginning aren't a real thing. Michael Levitt in the beginning already calculated the outbreak in China perfectly. He made good Videos to explain the basic math. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCgPf1SuPNY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCgPf1SuPNY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uw2ZTaiN97k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uw2ZTaiN97k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aHrx68IT7o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aHrx68IT7o Maybe take a look at some f'/f in a logchart... It's easy to do - just look at death per day/total. Some countries are easy to model (e.g. Germany) - US is difficult with policies and outbreaks coming from different sides, ... - but some states are not that difficult to understand)

DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
> One result of the Heinsberg study in Germany was that living together with an infected person only resulted in ~43% chance of infection. If you're living in an area where the virus is circulating, you are likely to eventually be exposed many times. Getting lucky once is not enough. > like a seasonal virus that starts big and then fizzles. The high R-Values people talked about in the beginning aren't a real thing. They're absolutely real. Seasonal viruses come back every year, so if this is like the flu, then we have to worry about another major wave in the fall. Epidemics can slow down for two reasons: * Increasing immunity. Herd immunity is a long way off in most places in the world. Even places that had some of the worst outbreaks, like NY city, have only had ~20% infection rates. * People change their behavior, causing R to decrease. Social distancing, mask-wearing, enforced lockdowns, quarantining of infected people, quarantining of exposed people - these can all lead to slower spread of the virus. > Michael Levitt in the beginning already calculated the outbreak in China perfectly. The epidemic was suppressed in China through a massive government and societal response. It would have been far worse if there had been no reaction. Because of the reaction, most of the country was spared the experience that Wuhan had. If all containment measures were to end today, the epidemic would flare up again and millions of people would die over the next several months. The only way to permanently dampen the outbreak is to achieve a high level of immunity. That can either be through a vaccine, in which case almost nobody will die, or it can be through herd immunity, in which case many millions of people will die worldwide.
- anoncake 6y ago
  > If you're living in an area where the virus is circulating, you are likely to eventually be exposed many times. Getting lucky once is not enough. It's not about how often you're exposed to the virus but about how long and how intensely. Living with someone is pretty much the worst case.

stonemetal12 6y ago

Where did you get your 0.5% from? According to Johns Hopkins in the UK more than 15% of those who get it die, for the US it is 3.7%. The link says those numbers were updated this morning so they are current. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality

hatsunearu 6y ago
That percentage being higher only helps that guy's argument though
- stonemetal12 6y ago
  I don't mind if it does or it doesn't. I haven't seen a source for the 0.5%, everything I had seen had higher numbers, so I thought I would ask. But remember kids, not knowing, being curious, and asking questions is frowned upon on HN.
Apfel 6y ago
15% of those who test positive die. Most infected people are unlikely to be tested in the UK unless they are admitted to hospital.
jbritton 6y ago
There is “case fatality rate” and there is “infected fatality rate”. The CDC has estimated the IFR, but the value varies based on assumptions. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/5269331002 https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/5269331002
cm2187 6y ago
How can you still push lies like that? The mortality rate is nowhere near 15%. Rather within 1%. Case fatality ratio is a ratio to confirmed cases, which in a country where people have been told to stay at home if they are sick and not get tested for most of the peak of the pandemic is a massive underestimation of “people who get it”. Spreading false information like that is irresponsible.