11–20 of 76 posts
> 19 more require hospitalization.
> 18 of those will have permanent heart damage for the rest of their lives.
...
> One study published in March found that out of 416 _hospitalized_ Covid-19 patients, 19% showed signs of heart damage.
How many other mistakes can you spot?
What is the mortality rate of one of the more severe stains of the common cold or the flu? I'm sure we've had one of those that got to 0.5% or more in recent history? Does that mean 0.5% is too low to shut everything down?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_swine_flu_pandemic#Compar...
What is the mortality rate of one of the more severe stains of the common cold or the flu? I'm sure we've had one of those that got to 0.5% or more in recent history? Does that mean 0.5% is too low to shut everything down?
Second, basically everyone except small children has had the flu, and has some immunity to it, while we're all "immunologically naive" vis-a-vis SARS-CoV-2.
What is the mortality rate of one of the more severe stains of the common cold or the flu? I'm sure we've had one of those that got to 0.5% or more in recent history? Does that mean 0.5% is too low to shut everything down?
First, the flu doesn't have the other severe consequences outlined in the article. Second, basically everyone except small children has had the flu, and has some immunity to it, while we're all "immunologically naive" vis-a-vis SARS-CoV-2.
The tl;dr: > So now all of a sudden, that “but it’s only 1% fatal!” becomes: > 3,282,000 people dead. > 62,358,000 hospitalized. > 59,076,000 people with permanent heart damage. > 32,820,000 people with permanent lung damage. > 9,846,000 people with strokes. > 6,564,000 people with muscle weakness. > 6,564,000 people with loss of cognitive function.
It becomes far worse than that, as our medical system can't handle 62M hospitalizations. (Nor 60-70% of that, which is more realistic, as it's unlikely to hit 100% of the population.) NYC's hospitals came close to the breaking point; Italy's exceeded it in spots.
> This model assumes that the question’s hypothetical is correct and the fatality rate is 1%. It also assumes for the sake of argument 100% infection. (In reality, of course, neither of these is a perfect match to reality. The infection rate will never hit 100%, but the fatality rate in a widespread infection is likely to be greater than 1%, because health care services will be overwhelmed.)
It's shut down most countries in the world, not just the U.S.
The tl;dr: > So now all of a sudden, that “but it’s only 1% fatal!” becomes: > 3,282,000 people dead. > 62,358,000 hospitalized. > 59,076,000 people with permanent heart damage. > 32,820,000 people with permanent lung damage. > 9,846,000 people with strokes. > 6,564,000 people with muscle weakness. > 6,564,000 people with loss of cognitive function.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
First, the flu doesn't have the other severe consequences outlined in the article. Second, basically everyone except small children has had the flu, and has some immunity to it, while we're all "immunologically naive" vis-a-vis SARS-CoV-2.
Young people are basically at 0% mortality from covid
What is the mortality rate of one of the more severe stains of the common cold or the flu? I'm sure we've had one of those that got to 0.5% or more in recent history? Does that mean 0.5% is too low to shut everything down?
Covid-19 also is substantially more transmissible than flu.
There is nothing since 1918 that is comparable to where we are now, at least within the US context. Even the polio outbreaks (where in schools, movie theaters, pools and other features were shutdown to protect kids) don't really compare.