Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Government Response To The Coronavirus


James Daulton

Recommended Posts

So several Yankees and now a Nationals pitcher have tested positive and all have been vaccinated.  So does the vaccination not work or is the test bogus?  If the vaccine limits symptoms but not catching Corona, then how do we know a vaccinated person can't spread it?  Or suffer long term effects from having it even though they just covered up the symptoms?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

So several Yankees and now a Nationals pitcher have tested positive and all have been vaccinated.  So does the vaccination not work or is the test bogus?  If the vaccine limits symptoms but not catching Corona, then how do we know a vaccinated person can't spread it?  Or suffer long term effects from having it even though they just covered up the symptoms?

Its not 100%.

But I agree with the bolded. Especially since 8 Yankees coaches/staff got it. They were all (except 1) asymptomatic but it obviously spread amongst them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dickies said:

Really?  So your idea of herd immunity is letting everyone catch it and see who survives?

Once we understood that this virus primarily affects old people, yes precisely.  Imagine how many people would have been saved had we reached herd immunity 6 months ago.  Protecting the vulnerable and sending the virus through the population that had much lower mortality rates would have saved countless lives.  Even though more would have died initially, the last 6 months would have been worth it.  December, January and February were deadly months that could have been avoided.  

Cowpox is a virus that was used as the very first vaccine, a vaccine for Smallpox.  We got everybody sick with a less deadly disease because it made people produce antibodies that kept them from getting Smallpox. Think of the young and strong people contracting Covid like Cowpox.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, tonydead said:

Once we understood that this virus primarily affects old people, yes precisely.  Imagine how many people would have been saved had we reached herd immunity 6 months ago.  Protecting the vulnerable and sending the virus through the population that had much lower mortality rates would have saved countless lives.  Even though more would have died initially, the last 6 months would have been worth it.  December, January and February were deadly months that could have been avoided.  

Cowpox is a virus that was used as the very first vaccine, a vaccine for Smallpox.  We got everybody sick with a less deadly disease because it made people produce antibodies that kept them from getting Smallpox. Think of the young and strong people contracting Covid like Cowpox.  

I'm just going to step away before I get banned again.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, Dickies said:

I'm just going to step away before I get banned again.

Probably a good choice for you Dickies.  The experts will be debating whether we did the right thing or not for decades, but, when you get a clear moment think about it and run a few scenarios.  We know how many people died in the last 6 months and we know the mortality demographics.  I suspect the numbers make sense.  And this isn't just my idea.  Months ago I linked to a bunch of experts that thought we should have been taking this approach back then.  

And back on topic - the fact remains we will reach herd immunity, if we haven't already, one way or the other.  ETA: Actually it is going to be a combination of the two no matter what.

Edited by tonydead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, tonydead said:

Probably a good choice for you Dickies.  The experts will be debating whether we did the right thing or not for decades, but, when you get a clear moment think about it and run a few scenarios.  We know how many people died in the last 6 months and we know the mortality demographics.  I suspect the numbers make sense.  And this isn't just my idea.  Months ago I linked to a bunch of experts that thought we should have been taking this approach back then.  

And back on topic - the fact remains we will reach herd immunity, if we haven't already, one way or the other.  ETA: Actually it is going to be a combination of the two no matter what.

I did not see your prior posts on the topic. What are the hospital ICU/death totals reaching heard immunity 6 months ago with 330 million people?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, tonydead said:

Once we understood that this virus primarily affects old people, yes precisely.  Imagine how many people would have been saved had we reached herd immunity 6 months ago.  Protecting the vulnerable and sending the virus through the population that had much lower mortality rates would have saved countless lives.  Even though more would have died initially, the last 6 months would have been worth it.  December, January and February were deadly months that could have been avoided.  

Cowpox is a virus that was used as the very first vaccine, a vaccine for Smallpox.  We got everybody sick with a less deadly disease because it made people produce antibodies that kept them from getting Smallpox. Think of the young and strong people contracting Covid like Cowpox.  

I saw this idea get batted around a bit in the early days of the pandemic.  Setting aside the ethical issues, it probably would have created a serious health care problem.  If we deliberately infected young/healthy people with SARS-CoV-2, some proportion of those folks would still become seriously ill to the point of requiring hospitalization.  That's a small percentage, but multiply that small percentage by a very large number of people and hospitals can't handle that volume of ICU patients.  

Also, having that many covid-positive people would likely endanger older and sicker people who still have to go to the store, etc.

It's all academic now.  If we're looking ahead to future pandemics, I would like to see the FDA abolished and its head mounted on a pike as a warning to others.  Maybe then we won't have to wait so long for vaccines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, BigJim® said:

I did not see your prior posts on the topic. What are the hospital ICU/death totals reaching heard immunity 6 months ago with 330 million people?

I haven't run the exact numbers looking at it from deaths alone, but, you can start with about 375,000 deaths since October 20th to work with on top of the 277,000 already.  That's pretty staggering.

In my prior arguments it included economic, social and heath costs resulting from shutting down and all the restrictions.  I mean who would have thought in October we would have had another 375,000 deaths by May.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know how you actually "protect" the elderly and those at truly at risk of complications.  It does not sounds feasible under anything but putting them all in closed camps with no in/out privileges. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

So several Yankees and now a Nationals pitcher have tested positive and all have been vaccinated.  So does the vaccination not work or is the test bogus?  If the vaccine limits symptoms but not catching Corona, then how do we know a vaccinated person can't spread it?  Or suffer long term effects from having it even though they just covered up the symptoms?

There's a fairly lengthy discussion about this in the "why is Biden wearing a mask" thread, but the most recent studies suggest that although you can still get the virus after being vaccinated, your viral load is much lower, resulting in milder symptoms and making it less likely (but not impossible) that you'll spread it.  Based on the links that were posted last week, I don't think there are any documented specific instances of a vaccinated individual infecting another person, but that doesn't mean it can't happen.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, -fish- said:

There's a fairly lengthy discussion about this in the "why is Biden wearing a mask" thread, but the most recent studies suggest that although you can still get the virus after being vaccinated, your viral load is much lower, resulting in milder symptoms and making it less likely (but not impossible) that you'll spread it.

This is all it in a nutshell. The vaccine is not a force field. What the vaccine does is take all the COVID odds you face and sharply reduces them -- but does not bring those odds down to zero.

That's it.

However: with enough people walking around with those sharply-reduced odds ... the background-radiation level of COVID drops like a stone. No, it will never get down to zero again. But getting it down even lower than influenza is still in play.

Edited by Doug B
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, tonydead said:

I haven't run the exact numbers looking at it from deaths alone, but, you can start with about 375,000 deaths since October 20th to work with on top of the 277,000 already.  That's pretty staggering.

In my prior arguments it included economic, social and heath costs resulting from shutting down and all the restrictions.  I mean who would have thought in October we would have had another 375,000 deaths by May.

It should be a simple math exercise to extrapolate from the numbers who required ICU and/or died when just 10% of the population had been inflicted. I'd think you'd need to account for lack of oxygen/medical services having substantial negative impact and likely increase to death figures. .

I think many were predicting the death totals that come as a surprise to you. Here's one projection I found from October. As I recall, they were frequently dire, given the manner in which the US was generally ignoring safety guidelines. To be surprised, you either did not see them, or thought the forecasts to be wrong. They weren't.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, tonydead said:

I haven't run the exact numbers looking at it from deaths alone, but, you can start with about 375,000 deaths since October 20th to work with on top of the 277,000 already.  That's pretty staggering.

In my prior arguments it included economic, social and heath costs resulting from shutting down and all the restrictions.  I mean who would have thought in October we would have had another 375,000 deaths by May.

You save lives by infecting more people earlier. This is nonsensical. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Redwes25 said:

You save lives by infecting more people earlier. This is nonsensical. 

We literally did that with Smallpox and early vaccines. How did you think vaccines worked before the 21st century? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a reminder: herd immunity comes with ~70% of the population being immune.  With 330M citizens, that means 231M much have immunity via infections or injections.  Assuming no vaccine, we are up to 33M now - 10%.  We would have had to endure 7x more infected people and therefore, 7x more deaths, or roughly 4M dead Americans total.

Until we hit 231M vaccinated or recovered people, COVID will continue to be a part of our lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, BigJim® said:

It should be a simple math exercise to extrapolate from the numbers who required ICU and/or died when just 10% of the population had been inflicted. I'd think you'd need to account for lack of oxygen/medical services having substantial negative impact and likely increase to death figures. .

I think many were predicting the death totals that come as a surprise to you. Here's one projection I found from October. As I recall, they were frequently dire, given the manner in which the US was generally ignoring safety guidelines. To be surprised, you either did not see them, or thought the forecasts to be wrong. They weren't.  

Thanks for posting. Their model projected 483k deaths by Feb 1 as a worst case. Actual number: 462K.  Projected: 2k deaths per day in mid Jan.  Actual number: up to 4k per day, so they under shot there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, moleculo said:

As a reminder: herd immunity comes with ~70% of the population being immune.  With 330M citizens, that means 231M much have immunity via infections or injections.  Assuming no vaccine, we are up to 33M now - 10%.  We would have had to endure 7x more infected people and therefore, 7x more deaths, or roughly 4M dead Americans total.

Until we hit 231M vaccinated or recovered people, COVID will continue to be a part of our lives.

How many have developed antibodies naturally?   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh I see, you are using positive tests. You are assuming everyone got tested when they contracted the virus. Given asymptomatic and the rate at which this spread it's likely 2, 3, 4 or even 7 times that amount. We dont know. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, tonydead said:

Oh I see, you are using positive tests. You are assuming everyone got tested when they contracted the virus. Given asymptomatic and the rate at which this spread it's likely 2, 3, 4 or even 7 times that amount. We dont know. 

Big difference between 2 and 7 times, while acknowledging we really don’t know if it’s even 2x. Yet, you would go back in time promoting natural herd immunity 6 months ago and risking 4 million deaths? Or even 2-3 million deaths? Or even 1 million more deaths? I don’t know, that seems a little strange. And in retrospect, given the subsequent distribution of vaccines, really reckless and short sighted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, moleculo said:

As a reminder: herd immunity comes with ~70% of the population being immune.  With 330M citizens, that means 231M much have immunity via infections or injections.  Assuming no vaccine, we are up to 33M now - 10%.  We would have had to endure 7x more infected people and therefore, 7x more deaths, or roughly 4M dead Americans total.

Until we hit 231M vaccinated or recovered people, COVID will continue to be a part of our lives.

Deaths would have increased at a greater rate once we exceeded healthcare capacity. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Redwes25 said:

You save lives by infecting more people earlier. This is nonsensical. 

Without wading into what we necessarily should have done, I believe the point being made is that in a world of no vaccines where the only way to gain immunity is the "hard way", mathematically the path to herd immunity actually matters a lot.  If you need to have, e.g., 80% of the population infected to reach herd protection, you want people at the least risk to be infected preferentially.

If you take the hypothetical example with 10,000 people with a 10% IFR, 10,000 people with a 1% IFR, and 10,000 people with a 0.1% IFR, if 80% of each group gets infected until you reach the 24,000 person threshold, you'll have 888 deaths.  If you infect all 20,000 of the two lower risk groups and only 40% of the high risk to get to 24,000, you'll have 510 deaths.

Of course, selectively infecting only the healthy while protecting the infirm is easier said than done.  Also, if one has a path to provide immunity without mortality (e.g., a really effective vaccine), then that is what you do.  Also, as was pointed out it may not work very well if you infect too many people at once and end up causing worse outcomes due to overloading.  Just pointing out that there is a mathematically nugget of truth behind the idea.

Also adding the disclaimer that despite my name and avatar, I am neither a doctor nor a chimpanzee.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, BigJim® said:

Big difference between 2 and 7 times, while acknowledging we really don’t know if it’s even 2x. Yet, you would go back in time promoting natural herd immunity 6 months ago and risking 4 million deaths? Or even 2-3 million deaths? Or even 1 million more deaths? I don’t know, that seems a little strange. And in retrospect, given the subsequent distribution of vaccines, really reckless and short sighted.

What percentage of the population got tested and how many did we happen to catch when they were carrrying virus? I'd bank on it being multiple times easy.  You're also making a couple other mistakes:

1- you dont count deaths to date, you start with when we would have reached heard immunity which would have been much, much sooner. 

2- you cant use the same mortality rate. We protect the vulnerable and ours would be much lower. 

It's not just me, there was a whole coalition of experts that agreed with this idea. I can dig that up for you if you want to read up on it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, MAC_32 said:

Deaths would have increased at a greater rate once we exceeded healthcare capacity. 

Our scenario doesnt have that happen. It was after the curve was flattened. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/17/2021 at 6:08 AM, moleculo said:

some time ago, I was thinking about when we can start easing off.  The threshold I came up with was roughly equivalent to the flu, in terms of deaths per day.  I mean, we don't really shut the country down for the flu, but we do still take the threat seriously - vaccines, taking care of people when they are sick, etc.  However, we still go to concerts, football games, bars, etc.  The world keeps spinning.

Nationally, in 2017-2018, 61k people died from the flu.  If you assume flu season is 120 days (Dec - March), that's ~508 people per day.  I want to see our daily death total somewhere near there before calling it good.

Our 7 day moving average is 633 per day.  That's pretty damn close.

I can't blame us for opening things up a bit early - things are definitely trending in the right direction.  We need to continue monitoring - if things start climbing again, we may have to re-introduce mask mandates and closures but I hope that's not necessary.

Typical flu season is more like 35K deaths, so roughly 300 deaths/day. Also, you probably should be more conservative with covid given the average hospital length of stay is greater, and long term effects still remain tbd.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/19/2021 at 11:31 AM, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

What do you guys think is the likelihood of a surge in cases this summer concentrated in low-vaccination rate areas like the Southeast?  I obviously don’t want it to happen but I wonder if it would be enough to nudge more of the vaccine-hesitant to get the shot.

Unlikely, as enough people will have already been infected and/or vaccinated in the SE US to keep Rt<1. There might be a smattering of outbreaks in extremely isolated, homogeneous communities, as occurs with stuff like measles, but not enough to cause a big surge.

Absent vaccine-refractory variants developing, I think we’re over the hump.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, moleculo said:

IMO, the real risk WRT kids is that they could carry the virus and transmit to someone who can't be vaccinated - i.e. the immunocompromised - cancer patients, transplant recipients, etc.

I'm not worried about kids giving it to folks who choose to not vaccinate - that's the risk they have chosen to take.  i'm also not concerned about health risks for kids - it doesn't seem a whole lot worse than the flu (for the most part) - yes there is a chance for long-haul symptoms but I don't think that is well documented at this point.

That being said, the immunocompromised would be just as susceptible to other things floating around that we tend to not worry about - i.e. the flu.  It's on them to keep themselves safe, just like any other time.  And honestly, it's probably easier for them these days - no one will look at them sideways for wearing a mask, there is hand sanitizer everywhere, and generally speaking, social distance is observed.

Although they might not have as robust a response to it, immunocompromised people can receive the vaccine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, BigJim® said:

Big difference between 2 and 7 times, while acknowledging we really don’t know if it’s even 2x. Yet, you would go back in time promoting natural herd immunity 6 months ago and risking 4 million deaths? Or even 2-3 million deaths? Or even 1 million more deaths? I don’t know, that seems a little strange. And in retrospect, given the subsequent distribution of vaccines, really reckless and short sighted.

Early seroprevalence studies suggested actual cases were 4-5x the numbers formally diagnosed. As testing has become widely available, I’m sure the number is lower now. But there’s still a big chunk of asymptomatic people who never were tested, so a 2-3x guesstimate of the true number of cases isn’t unreasonable IMO.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, moleculo said:

As a reminder: herd immunity comes with ~70% of the population being immune.  With 330M citizens, that means 231M much have immunity via infections or injections.  Assuming no vaccine, we are up to 33M now - 10%.  We would have had to endure 7x more infected people and therefore, 7x more deaths, or roughly 4M dead Americans total.

Until we hit 231M vaccinated or recovered people, COVID will continue to be a part of our lives.

There is so much wrong in this.  Wow.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, moleculo said:

IMO, the real risk WRT kids is that they could carry the virus and transmit to someone who can't be vaccinated - i.e. the immunocompromised - cancer patients, transplant recipients, etc.

I'm not worried about kids giving it to folks who choose to not vaccinate - that's the risk they have chosen to take.  i'm also not concerned about health risks for kids - it doesn't seem a whole lot worse than the flu (for the most part) - yes there is a chance for long-haul symptoms but I don't think that is well documented at this point.

That being said, the immunocompromised would be just as susceptible to other things floating around that we tend to not worry about - i.e. the flu.  It's on them to keep themselves safe, just like any other time.  And honestly, it's probably easier for them these days - no one will look at them sideways for wearing a mask, there is hand sanitizer everywhere, and generally speaking, social distance is observed.

I clicked reply after reading your first paragraph. Was going to type what you typed in the last paragraph. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, moleculo said:

As a reminder: herd immunity comes with ~70% of the population being immune.  With 330M citizens, that means 231M much have immunity via infections or injections.  Assuming no vaccine, we are up to 33M now - 10%.  We would have had to endure 7x more infected people and therefore, 7x more deaths, or roughly 4M dead Americans total.

Until we hit 231M vaccinated or recovered people, COVID will continue to be a part of our lives.

There's a reason research has already begun to assess the booster options for us moving forward.  The assumption is it's here to stay for a long time.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, moleculo said:

how so?  please explain.

7X the cases doesn't equate to 7X the deaths.  The medical community has learned quite a bit about the disease and the deaths are quite a bit lower now.

There is a guarantee, with no doubt whatsoever, that thousands maybe millions more Americans have had the disease and were never documented. That's just common sense.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Commish said:

There's a reason research has already begun to assess the booster options for us moving forward.  The assumption is it's here to stay for a long time.

I think so but once we reach that 70% immunity threshhold, COVID will be a part of our lives similar to the flu or chicken pox...something that is out there and deadly but we can deal with it.  We will go get our yearly boosters and that will be that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

7X the cases doesn't equate to 7X the deaths.  The medical community has learned quite a bit about the disease and the deaths are quite a bit lower now.

There is a guarantee, with no doubt whatsoever, that thousands maybe millions more Americans have had the disease and were never documented. That's just common sense.

You guys are talking about two different things.  When all is said and done, let's say the death rate ends up being .5%  (this is the number you're talking about...as we learn better treatment methods this number goes down).  1000 people get the disease it will be safe to assume that 5 people die.  If that number of people who get the disease increases by 7X that is 7000 people and it will be safe to assume that 35 people die (this is the number moleculo is talking about).  

Edited by The Commish
  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The Commish said:

You guys are talking about two different things.  When all is said and done, let's say the death rate ends up being .5%  (this is the number you're talking about...as we learn better treatment methods this number goes down).  1000 people get the disease it will be safe to assume that 5 people die.  If that number of people who get the disease increases by 7X that is 7000 people and it will be safe to assume that 35 people die (this is the number moleculo is talking about).  

Nope...You're basing the .5% on KNOWN cases. There are thousands and potentially millions more cases than we know. Now will that change the %?  I don't know that for sure, because after all it is unknown.  I'm saying assumptions are being made on incomplete data.  And as I said, a 7 fold increase in covid cases will not Lead to a 7 fold increase in deaths due to covid.  Not even close

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, jobarules said:

Its not 100%.

But I agree with the bolded. Especially since 8 Yankees coaches/staff got it. They were all (except 1) asymptomatic but it obviously spread amongst them. 

They all could have got it from the same unvaccinated person. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

Nope...You're basing the .5% on KNOWN cases. There are thousands and potentially millions more cases than we know. Now will that change the %?  I don't know that for sure, because after all it is unknown.  I'm saying assumptions are being made on incomplete data.  And as I said, a 7 fold increase in covid cases will not Lead to a 7 fold increase in deaths due to covid.  Not even close

Sure...change that % number to whatever number you want.  Everything in the bold is 100% true.  It doesn't change the fact that you guys are talking about two different numbers as I illustrated above.  You're talking about a death rate and he's talking about total deaths.

Edited by The Commish
  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Sure...change that % number to whatever number you want.  Everything in the bold is 100% true.  It doesn't change the fact that you guys are talking about two different numbers as I illustrated above.  You're talking about a death rate and he's talking about total deaths.

No we are not.  He said, 7X increase in covid cases = a 7X increase in covid deaths.  I said no that isn't true.  Because it isn't true.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

No we are not.  He said, 7X increase in covid cases = a 7X increase in covid deaths.  I said no that isn't true.  Because it isn't true.

 

What would % increase in deaths would a 7x increase in known COVID cases produce? Agreed that it won't be 7x.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
46 minutes ago, The Z Machine said:

What would % increase in deaths would a 7x increase in known COVID cases produce? Agreed that it won't be 7x.

The reason it would be lower than that is demographics.  Once the virus tears through the elderly, killing 5-10% of everyone in that population segment but an aggregate CFR of 1.5-2%, things would slow down.  That's where the math gets murky, and this is what @Dr_Zaiuswas talking about above (He'll never make a monkey out of me).

We can argue about true numbers of infected people across the entire population vs reported positive tests.  But it's widely assumed the COVID death toll is underrepresented as well.  There are errors on both sides of the equation.

My general premise is that to get to herd immunity without vaccine, a hell of a lot more people would have to get sick and a hell of a lot more people would die.  Remember the initial projections of 2.5M?  That's a far cry from the 4M that I was talking about, but 2.5M dead Americans is still a hell of a lot. We can use that number - call it 4x instead of 7x if that makes @supermike80happy.

Further, as has been pointed out above, these numbers do not account for what happens when there is a run on PPE, oxygen, intensive care beds, etc.  If we had stopped mitigation efforts in favor of just letting everyone get sick, the death toll would compound and be much, much higher - 10x?  20x?

If we just kept doing what we did, it might take 5 years to get to herd immunity.  That's what a flattened curve would look like.  5 more years of wearing masks, restaurants being closed, no movies, empty stadiums, etc. 

Edited by moleculo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, moleculo said:

The reason it would be lower than that is demographics.  Once the virus tears through the elderly, killing 5-10% of everyone and an aggregate CFR of 1.5-2%, things would slow down.  That's where the math gets murky, and this is what @Dr_Zaiuswas talking about above (He'll never make a monkey out of me).

We can argue about true numbers of infected people across the entire population vs reported positive tests.  But it's widely assumed the COVID death toll is underrepresented as well.  There are errors on both sides of the equation.

My general premise is that to get to herd immunity without vaccine, a hell of a lot more people would have to get sick and a hell of a lot more people would die.  Remember the initial projections of 2.5M?  That's a far cry from the 4M that I was talking about, but 2.5M dead Americans is still a hell of a lot. We can use that number - call it 4x instead of 7x if that makes @supermike80happy.

Further, as has been pointed out above, these numbers do not account for what happens when there is a run on PPE, oxygen, intensive care beds, etc.  If we had stopped mitigation efforts in favor of just letting everyone get sick, the death toll would compound and be much, much higher - 10x?  20x?

If we just kept doing what we did, it might take 5 years to get to herd immunity.  That's what a flattened curve would look like.  5 more years of wearing masks, restaurants being closed, no movies, empty stadiums, etc. 

huh....so you WERE talking about something else....go figure.

  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The Commish said:

huh....so you WERE talking about something else....go figure.

yeah, that math behind epidemiology fascinates me...the way that overall populations can behave in predictable ways, even though on the micro level it doesn't appear to be so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, moleculo said:

The reason it would be lower than that is demographics.  Once the virus tears through the elderly, killing 5-10% of everyone in that population segment but an aggregate CFR of 1.5-2%, things would slow down.  That's where the math gets murky, and this is what @Dr_Zaiuswas talking about above (He'll never make a monkey out of me).

We can argue about true numbers of infected people across the entire population vs reported positive tests.  But it's widely assumed the COVID death toll is underrepresented as well.  There are errors on both sides of the equation.

My general premise is that to get to herd immunity without vaccine, a hell of a lot more people would have to get sick and a hell of a lot more people would die.  Remember the initial projections of 2.5M?  That's a far cry from the 4M that I was talking about, but 2.5M dead Americans is still a hell of a lot. We can use that number - call it 4x instead of 7x if that makes @supermike80happy.

Further, as has been pointed out above, these numbers do not account for what happens when there is a run on PPE, oxygen, intensive care beds, etc.  If we had stopped mitigation efforts in favor of just letting everyone get sick, the death toll would compound and be much, much higher - 10x?  20x?

If we just kept doing what we did, it might take 5 years to get to herd immunity.  That's what a flattened curve would look like.  5 more years of wearing masks, restaurants being closed, no movies, empty stadiums, etc. 

Way better, much more detailed thought than earlier.  I agree with most of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, moleculo said:

yeah, that math behind epidemiology fascinates me...the way that overall populations can behave in predictable ways, even though on the micro level it doesn't appear to be so.

I can give you the wife's number and you can sit in on the calls her and her buddies have on "Wine Wednesdays"  :lol: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...