3 ms·
How many micromorts do we need to be at for it to be acceptable? If you can't name a probability of death that is acceptable then your opinion is worthless (don
by slaymaker1907 6y ago
How many micromorts do we need to be at for it to be acceptable? If you can't name a probability of death that is acceptable then your opinion is worthless (don't worry, lots of people seem to be in this camp). We accept risks for far dumber stuff every day. Maybe its 1 micromort or 100, but there must be some point at which making everyone wear a mask is more trouble than it is worth.
- tialaramex 6y agoBecause it's an infectious disease your model needs to account for spread. So that's what matters here, it's not that 1000 deaths per year is magically fine while 100 000 per year is not, it's that right now 1000 cases turns into 100 000 cases and deaths accordingly. So assuming the vaccination programme is able to achieve herd immunity and maintain it either indefinitely or until the pandemic is over or border controls isolate that impact then you don't need to try to pick some number of micro-morts. This is another reason elimination was obviously the correct strategy. Zero is special. If something doubles every day then no matter your start number you're screwed - unless it was zero in which case you're fine because zero doubled is... zero. Elimination allowed New Zealand to not need to estimate R numbers and weigh up whether to open bars or nurseries, universities or sports stadiums, because zero multiplied by anything is zero. But if you can achieve herd immunity through vaccination you get to the same place by being assured of the multiplier instead, and that's a more practical option for countries like the US at this point.
- jokethrowaway 6y agoMicromorts vary hugely based on pre-existing conditions (and, consequently, age)