| General > General Technical Chat |
| Covid 19 virus |
| << < (112/381) > >> |
| Cerebus:
--- Quote from: imo on March 18, 2020, 04:51:17 pm --- --- Quote from: blueskull on March 18, 2020, 04:24:28 pm ---.. Even if UK has the best health care and infinite resource to take care of everyone, it would at best be able to get mortality rate down to 1%. --- End quote --- Where this 1% comes from?? --- End quote --- Imperial report, page 7, 510,000 deaths. |
| flyte:
--- Quote from: blueskull on March 18, 2020, 04:24:28 pm --- --- Quote from: flyte on March 18, 2020, 03:54:08 pm ---And yes, this kind of spreading would probably work to achieve rapid and broad global population immunity. --- End quote --- Herd immunity is gained by infecting or vaccinating P amount of population where P is at least 1-1/R. For COVID19, R0 is estimated to be 3, so P must be above 2/3. Even if UK has the best health care and infinite resource to take care of everyone, it would at best be able to get mortality rate down to 1%. 1% of 66.7% of 66M population is 440k assuming no vaccine comes out soon. WW2 killed 450K British people including civilians. Whatever book Boris was reading, it must be as deadly as Mein Kampf. ... I see no reason why surrender is a good idea, even if herd immunity is used as a last line of defense weapon. --- End quote --- You're again cherry-picking my quotes. I've never said this would actually be a solution let alone a good idea. It's the theoretical end of a spectrum, the other hypothetical end being a complete freeze of human interaction. I've repeated this several times above, of course this would be an uttermost cruel solution from a society point of view. And so far mortality rate has been 3-3.5% for the known infected about everywhere, so indeed real mortality rate over all infected won't be anything lower than 1-2% of the actual population. That's why people should worry, taking me back to my first posts in this threads. If Boris is really thinking of this for the UK as you said, he's going to end up in history books, on the bad side. |
| flyte:
--- Quote from: imo on March 18, 2020, 04:51:17 pm --- --- Quote from: blueskull on March 18, 2020, 04:24:28 pm ---.. Even if UK has the best health care and infinite resource to take care of everyone, it would at best be able to get mortality rate down to 1%. --- End quote --- Where this 1% comes from?? --- End quote --- Current mortality rates on known infected individuals are in the 3-3.5% range (last time I've checked at least, but it has been pretty much the same since the outbreak in China). However, more individuals get infected than just the known cases, who present few or no symptoms, or simply because countries can't test everyone. So this lowers the real mortality rate vs. a population. Experts think this would take it down to about 1% or so, taking the infected individuals into account who stayed under the radar. But this is still a vast number of individuals, as correctly pointed out by the reply poster, assuming you would do nothing to contain the outbreak. |
| flyte:
--- Quote from: blueskull on March 18, 2020, 05:25:03 pm --- --- Quote from: flyte on March 18, 2020, 05:17:34 pm ---You're again cherry-picking my quotes. --- End quote --- Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against you, I was just posting against the extreme solution that you referred, not the one you proposed. --- End quote --- To be very clear: the extreme endpoint I've mentioned is just that, an endpoint, not a solution. At least not a humane one. Anyone advocating such horrors would be on his own morals and history will judge him or her, as far as it concerns me. The danger with this virus' cocktail of properties, is exactly that: if you do nothing as a population, you're heading for straight horror. |
| iMo:
--- Quote from: flyte on March 18, 2020, 05:25:37 pm --- --- Quote from: imo on March 18, 2020, 04:51:17 pm --- --- Quote from: blueskull on March 18, 2020, 04:24:28 pm ---.. Even if UK has the best health care and infinite resource to take care of everyone, it would at best be able to get mortality rate down to 1%. --- End quote --- Where this 1% comes from?? --- End quote --- Current mortality rates on known infected individuals are in the 3-3.5% range (last time I've checked at least, but it has been pretty much the same since the outbreak in China). However, more individuals get infected than just the known cases, who present few or no symptoms, or simply because countries can't test everyone. So this lowers the real mortality rate vs. a population. Experts think this would take it down to about 1% or so, taking the infected individuals into account who stayed under the radar. But this is still a vast number of individuals, as correctly pointed out by the reply poster, assuming you would do nothing to contain the outbreak. --- End quote --- That number is pretty important one, I would say. The issue I see is the CFR values I've seen and heard in last 2 weeks varies from 15 to 0.1. For example a report from 2014 on H1N1 influenza 2009 pandemic CFRs: --- Quote ---There is very substantial heterogeneity in published estimates of case fatality risk for H1N1pdm09, ranging from <1 to >10,000 per 100,000 infections --- End quote --- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3809029/ |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |