And all these precautions we are being asked to take are meant to slow down the infection rate so the hospitals aren’t overwhelmed all at one time. Isn’t a matter of “when”, not “if”?. And like all other viruses, the vast majority of us that come down with it will experience mild to no symptoms at all and just go on with our lives. Isn’t it called Herd Immunity?
Moving to Quarantine.
Last projection I saw was 20-60% of people will get infected. Presuming that to be the tail ends of some sort of bell curve, your best bet odds would be 40% or somewhat less than a flip of a coin.
They might have better stuff at a hospital. But, by that point, you’ve already been hospitalized.
Herd immunity supposedly won’t kick in until around 70% of people get it.
I’m still not sure what % truly are asymptomatic carriers. My understanding is when they say a person doesn’t have symptoms but tested positive, it could mean they don’t have symptoms yet. It can take up to 2 weeks for symptoms to start.
I believe in one of the quarantined cruises they found that it was closer to 18% who were truly asymptomatic. Many asymptomatic people developed symptoms after a few days or weeks.
As far as ‘mild’, I’m not sure what that means either. It could mean a slight fever, it could mean ’ 3 weeks of misery and pain but never needed to visit a hospital’. I wouldn’t consider the latter mild but thats kind of the definition I’ve seen thrown around for what counts as mild.
The flu has an R0 of about 1.3, which means every infected person infects about 1.3 other people. So 3 people have the flu, they infect 4 more. Despite having a fairly low R0 that is barely above 1, the flu still infects 5-20% of Americans a year. The coronavirus is a 2.5 R0, and supposedly will infect 20-70% of people if allowed to roam freely.
It’s very difficult to establish an RO at this stage of a pandemic. New York City is getting really hard hit. Other big cities (e.g. Shanghai, Tokyo, London, Moscow) have been exposed. Why so many cases in New York?
On March 2nd Democrat NYC Mayor told (Tweeted) NYC resident to go out on the town and not worry about the virus. (Not the only reason, but it sure didn’t help). I believe his tweet coincided with the first know Corona Virus infection in the city.
And your link to that tweet is where, exactly?
Because I’m looking at de Blasio’s March 2nd tweets right now and I don’t see one that says “go out on the town and not worry about the virus”.
NYC is the most densely-populated place in the US, and it’s a city where most of the population relies on public transportation.
And yet you believe incorrectly. I looked through De Blasio’s tweets from the date you cite and he never tweeted what you claim. I also went back to 2/26 and still didn’t see what you incorrectly claim. Care to try again? This time with a link to a cite please.
What does his political affiliation have to do with anything?
You are correct that his political affiliation should have no bearing, but the idiot in question did indeed say to go out on the town.
The real Bill de Blasio’s Twitter handle is @NYCMayor. I don’t know who @BilldeBlasio is, but considering that this account hasn’t been active for over a month and its profile has an “accomplishments” URL that leads to a 404, I doubt it’s the genuine article.
Even if it is, it does not say to “not worry about the virus” as Mangosteen claimed, and it appears to be a glib way of promoting an Italian arthouse film, not a general piece of advice.
When I hit the link in Twitter I get a blue check mark account for Bill de Blasio that is active and has been since 2012 with 200k followers. I believe this is his personal Twitter rather his official Mayor Twitter account.
Perhaps you know this already (you didn’t say why you were providing the link), but that site is associated with the Daily Caller. Probably not the best source for reliable news:
It shouldn’t ---- but it certainly seems to in the heavily politicize cable news media — and it certainly seems to with all the goose-stepping followers of that Media. Just look around.
Would not a better strategy be to pour our resources into sheltering the more vulnerable while encouraging the lower risk groups to just go about their business and catch the virus. This would be after the first wave of course passes. I saw where it is estimated that after the first wave only about 3% of the population wold have immunity. Each shutdown causes enormous financial damage and I fail to see many long term benefits from it. The young and healthy groups would not likely overload the hospitals and if infected and becoming immune could greatly slow the transmission rates.
Yes, of course. But I was talking specifically about Mangosteen’s post. There was no reason for the word “Democrat” to be there, other than as a dig at… something?
Pardon me for getting back to the OP. If the real R0 is 2.5 (and this is just a guess at this point since we really don’t know what percentage of infections are asymptomatic) this means that until the percentage of recovered (and presumably immune) population rises above 60%, it will continue to increase. One of these days I will try to calculate what the actual infection curve looks like. Once the recovered population goes above 60%, it will quickly die out. And then there will likely be a vaccine. But note that vaccines are not automatic; despite massive efforts, there has been no HIV vaccine after 40 years.
The current efforts at containment are basically to flatten the curve. Try not to overload the medical system so let the cases spread out. Maybe a vaccine will come long before that 60% is reached. Try to save all the old farts like me.