@eladar saidVery early on during this pandemic, estimates were infection rates of 40-70% and a death rate of 2% (which is generous btw).
So that in itself is reason to believe the numbers would never reach that high today, even with no intervention.
If we settle on 50% infection rate coupled with 2% death rate.
That comes out to 1% of 330m population ==> 3.3m dead.
That is in a do nothing scenario, which can mean any one of the following:
- just ride it out
- herd immunity
- it’s just another flu
- president telling the population it’s going away down to zero, by magic, and besides it’s a democratic hoax.
I find it amusing that some in this forum still downplay this crisis because of the reduced numbers of infections and fatalities that was achieved by measures taken that were opposed by the same people.
Yup !!
1 edit
@eladar saidWhat your post is really telling us is that we’re not done counting yet.
@mghrn55
How many people younger than 45 die from this? Try 1 percent of total deaths of people younger than 45.
Forcing people younger than 45 in quarantine did nothing but destroy jobs.
In the end it may have just increased deaths in the 2nd year of this virus.
Very good !!
Contemplating the balance between damage to society (deaths) and damage to the economy is something every leader in this world is tasked with.
And that includes exiting the mitigation response to the pandemic.
My point being that a return to normal life can be carried out properly or recklessly just as mitigation was.
The US president dropped the ball entering the pandemic response.
At this point it appears his plan to return America back to normal is designed with his re-election as the top priority.
That is the height of recklessness !!!!!
@eladar saidIn 1919 no measures were taken to curb the spread.
The US population in 1919 was about 104 million, today that number is 382.2 milliin.
This means the US population has grown 265 percent to be 365 percent of 1919's population.
Now for the numbers...675 thousand deaths in the US for the Spanish Flu, in today's numbers that would be 2.46375 million people.
Funny how today's pandemic in no way compares to the Spanish Fl ...[text shortened]... bers. The world is far from coming to an end and it is no excuse for giving up individual freedoms.
@shavixmir
This thing would never have killed that many people even if nothing beyond telling people to wash their hands.
Retired people are retired and can shelter in place.
If 70 percent of those who are under 45 were to catch this thing, herd immunity would be assured. No need to worry about second and third rounds.
1 edit
@eladar saidSo, let’s check your numbers...
@shavixmir
This thing would never have killed that many people even if nothing beyond telling people to wash their hands.
Retired people are retired and can shelter in place.
If 70 percent of those who are under 45 were to catch this thing, herd immunity would be assured. No need to worry about second and third rounds.
70% of the world population is...
And roughly, say 1,5% of that is = 73,5 million deaths...
So, roughly the same as Spanish flu, wouldn’t you say?
@shavixmir saidLol, you are using old outdated percentages.
So, let’s check your numbers...
70% of the world population is...
And roughly, say 1,5% of that is = 73,5 million deaths...
So, roughly the same as Spanish flu, wouldn’t you say?
Since I am talking about the US, not the world you should use US numbers.
If those 65 and older shelter in place, a vast majority of people getting sick would be younger than 65.