What exactly do you think is a rational reaction to a disease with apparently an R0 of higher than 2.5 and a mortality rate of higher than 3.4%?
I'm not denying that there is a certain amount of hype, but those two numbers I think pretty much tell the whole story. You either believe those numbers are real, or you don't - in which case your distrust extends to far more than just 'the media'.
So, as for myself, I don't think we'll meet for two reasons.
First, and most importantly, for the sake of people outside our group who would be at high risk in the event of a general epidemic. For the sake of the elderly, it just doesn't make any sense to put our enjoyment ahead of their lives.
And secondly, several members of my group have the single most important co-morbidity factor - high blood pressure. So, even though mortality in our age group is quite low, with the high blood pressure present in it's in the 1% range. And that's to not even get into the relatively high risk that they'd need to be on oxygen for 2 to 4 weeks.
What exactly do you think is a rational reaction to a disease with apparently an R0 of higher than 2.5 and a mortality rate of higher than 3.4%?
There is an estimation step that happens between Celebrim's number, and the actual mortality risk.
Where are you getting your figures? Asnof now, 116000 confirmed cases, 4000 deaths. That's 3.4%. I've never seen your higher figure. The math doesn't work out like that.That estimation step is already factored into the 3.4% estimate. The number for those with verified infection is 5.7%.
I haven't read the papers you linked to yet, but every estimate I've seen for incidence rates under 2% postulates that there is a very large number of undetected cases in the population. The evidence for that is fairly weak though, and depends on a relatively large percentage of the population being asymptomatic.
Though, even if it were 2%, that would still be extraordinarily high from a historical perspective. It's been over 100 years since the last appearance of a novel disease with R0 around 2 and mortality rate around 2%.
What exactly do you think is a rational reaction to a disease with apparently an R0 of higher than 2.5 and a mortality rate of higher than 3.4%?
I'm not denying that there is a certain amount of hype, but those two numbers I think pretty much tell the whole story. You either believe those numbers are real, or you don't - in which case your distrust extends to far more than just 'the media'.
So, as for myself, I don't think we'll meet for two reasons.
First, and most importantly, for the sake of people outside our group who would be at high risk in the event of a general epidemic. For the sake of the elderly, it just doesn't make any sense to put our enjoyment ahead of their lives.
And secondly, several members of my group have the single most important co-morbidity factor - high blood pressure. So, even though mortality in our age group is quite low, with the high blood pressure present in it's in the 1% range. And that's to not even get into the relatively high risk that they'd need to be on oxygen for 2 to 4 weeks.
That estimation step is already factored into the 3.4% estimate. The number for those with verified infection is 5.7%.
I haven't read the papers you linked to yet, but every estimate I've seen for incidence rates under 2% postulates that there is a very large number of undetected cases in the population. The evidence for that is fairly weak though, and depends on a relatively large percentage of the population being asymptomatic.
Though, even if it were 2%, that would still be extraordinarily high from a historical perspective. It's been over 100 years since the last appearance of a novel disease with R0 around 2 and mortality rate around 2%.