How do you want to infect the remaining 12m pple? By force? If you go by likelyhood of death by age, basically everyone below the age of 45 has to be infected to protect the elderly.
Maybe it's less if you can get more aggressive with more immunity, but even if I'm wrong by a factor of 10 it's still years and the vaccine is the more realistic bet.
Another way is to separate young people from old people more effectively. Then you might be able to permit 1m young people to be infected each month with the same hospital budget we have today
https://www.nbcnewyork.com/entertainment/entertainment-news/...
Estimates make sense, especially if they proof your point even if you are off by a factor of 10.
UPDATE:
"Results show that the doubling time early in the epidemic in Wuhan was 2.3–3.3 days. Assuming a serial interval of 6–9 days, we calculated a median R0 value of 5.7"
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/7/20-0282_article
A herd immunity strategy involving fast immunization by continuing business as usual would then involve an R0 > 5.
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/7/20-0282_article
A herd immunity strategy involving fast immunization by continuing business as usual would then involve an R0 > 5.
However you can make it mandatory for anyone with cold/flu symptoms to self-isolate rather than do the manly thing of bring it into an office and work through it. You can also make it so that people have to go into quarantine after international travel. You can also do some testing.
Rabies has been kept outside of the UK for decades by the quarantine approach. Pets can go one way from the UK to the rest of the world quite freely but on the way back they have to be quarantined. With rabies free Ireland an exception can be made.
With this approach we can avoid the indefinite lockdown required until the holy vaccine is found.
I don't see what is gained by making armchair proclamations as if you know something the rest of us don't. You don't even seem to know what you don't know.
The herd immunity is not really something that you do but more of an unavoidable side effect. I'm not sure that we have much of a choice now that we are well beyond the point of containment.
The question then is how to get as many people as possible immune - you'll either need a vaccine or many need to get the infection and survive. A vaccine is not on the horizon for another 6-12 months, so the best course of action is to build the number of survivors.
What brings death? Mainly the sudden onslaught on the health system. If there is no bed, respirator, blood supply, ... Left then you're much more likely to have patients die than if you have a hospital at regular capacity. There are some that WILL for but by slowly building immunity (i.e. allowing some parts of the population to get exposed) you avoid the high death toll of an unmanaged outbreak.
So if total eradication is impossible, slow infection rates are better than none. Why? Because if you don't build the immunity you will again have violent outbreaks killing many. And you simply can't lock everyone at home for another 6 months.
Most of the people who go on respirators die. If the health system is going to be our weapon here until the vaccine is developed, we need to find ways to manage the disease before it gets to the point where we intubate people. Remdesivir might be that drug, but we're unlikely to have the kind of supply needed for what you propose until after the first vaccines potentially may be available.
If the virus had certain death rates and longer periods where it remained dormant. We would have to make choices to eradicate that. We're in a different situation where we have different choices and outcomes.
Beware when they start calling you [say] a consumer.
So saying there is "no basis" is a bit rich. There may still be uncertainty.
Edit: this (just googled) article cites Diamong Princess to lead to an estimate of 0.5% death rate https://www.sciencenews.org/article/coronavirus-outbreak-dia... (the percentage of deaths on the DP was higher, but the passengers were also comparatively old on average).
Edit 2: lol for the downvote. What the fuck?
Edit 3: about the study in Germany https://www.theblaze.com/news/german-study-shows-coronavirus... (don't know "The Blaze", but if you care, you can google for better sources - google for "Streeck").
Edit 4: Theodore Roosevelt carrier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_on_U...
> About 1,000 people participated in the study by way of questionnaires, throat swabs, and blood tests to detect the presence of COVID-19 antibodies. These interim results are based on data from about 500 people.
So only a sample size of 500 plus not accounting for other local factors there, like being a small village.
Not really, actually. At least I haven't seen a number of "people who died because they couldn't receive care" - do you have one? It seems possible that once health care systems are overwhelmed, more people die. But how often, if ever in this pandemic, has that point been reached? I don't think that often - there is no good treatment anyway.
"only a sample size of 500"
It's science. 500 can be a lot, or few. It was a sound and thorough study by acknowledged scientists.
No, that's impossible to provide between people dying at home because hospitals are full and the general chaos of those situations. And then there's the big difference between quality of care in various countries, death rates of just about everything will be much higher in Mozambique than they will be in Sweden, it's nonsensical to think that quality of medical care will not have an effect.
> It seems possible that once health care systems are overwhelmed, more people die. But how often, if ever in this pandemic, has that point been reached?
Many times in many countries, look at the national totals somewhere like here (https://covid19info.live/), the trend is nearly always that more cases at once translate to much higher death rates. Partly due to not knowing the true number of infections, but mostly due to the availability of medical care.
That's another claim you make, that you should be able to support. Have people been denied hospital care and therefore died at home?
"the trend is nearly always that more cases at once translate to much higher death rates"
Could have any number of explanations, like maybe infected old people homes.
"it's nonsensical to think that quality of medical care will not have an effect."
Again - are there cases of people dying because they couldn't receive care in the US, and how many?
"but mostly due to the availability of medical care."
Again, can you give any examples of people dying because they couldn't receive care? Especially in the US. And show that it is a significant number of people?
Even if absolutely 0 of the pending cases turn into deaths, and the true percentage of cases that are undetected is the full 50% that has been mentioned recently, that still puts us well above 3%.
Arithmetic: 7 in 100 right now. Add 0 to deaths, resolve all open cases and discover double the known case count: 7 in 200, 3.5%
---
For the surveys you mentioned. The Roosevelt still has active cases. The Princess likewise did at the time that article was written. You're citing that 0.5% figure incorrectly: that's a projection from the Diamond Princess onto China. I found a different source for the German survey -- that link isn't working for some reason. The same applies there.
Most importantly, these surveys are not representative of the global population. See above.
The recent results that have shown 50% asymptomatic cases are not conclusive yet, because it's too soon to say that all of those people will never have symptoms.
I would be ecstatic if I was wrong; I would love it if the upper estimate for asymptomatic cases was correct, and we had far fewer deaths than anyone's expecting. But it's just not in the numbers right now.
No. You can not simply calculate the death rate by dividing known deaths by known cases. Those numbers depend on who got tested and on how deaths are being counted, which also varies greatly from country to country. For starters, people who have severe symptoms are more likely to show up at hospitals and get tested. That introduces a huge bias already.
"You're citing that 0.5% figure incorrectly"
No I didn't, read what I wrote. And ALL numbers are projections. Even your calculation is a projection. Your calculation is an extraordinarily simplistic projection. Scientists hopefully make better projections, because they account for more influencing factors.
"The recent results that have shown 50% asymptomatic cases are not conclusive yet, because it's too soon to say that all of those people will never have symptoms"
What makes you so sure? It seems possible to make an estimate of when somebody got infected, especially in those studies of closed communities. After two weeks or so (scientists would determine a more prices number), it would be reasonable to assume they won't develop symptoms.
In the most charitable reading, you could view them akin to the CDC and masks, trying to keep the public slightly misinformed for the greater good (preserve mask supplies for hospitals). In the least charitable reading, there are a lot of depressed and angry people on the internet, who want to believe that this disease is truly civilization-ending, and attack any opposing narrative.
Either way, I would not take it personally, or as a judgement on your actual quoted facts.
For the introverted tech worker that prefers to work from home, the quarantine hasn't really negatively impacted their routine that much, and it might have actually lifted any peer pressure to go out and socialize with friends/co-workers/family.
For someone in that situation, there's not much of a benefit to advocate for reopening, and the deadlier the virus seems, the longer the lockdown will continue.
While I personally am comfortable working from home and my company is doing well, I'm sad that I couldn't visit my parents and my grandmother for Easter. And it particularly frustrates me that my grandmother has to sit at home and practice social distancing, where she cannot do anything much besides sitting in her chair and watching TV all day. (She doesn't have or want a smart device, and her chronic back pain keeps her from engaging in most other home activities.) And that's before I consider the people around me whose lifelihoods have been impacted or obliterated by the shutdown, or the essential workers who often have to work without adequate PPE.
That's not to say people here are selfish, only that it's easier to advocate for safety when you yourself are in a position of relative stability.
That said, I think you're right to be skeptical of the "let everyone get it and we'll have natural herd immunity" idea.
Loosening the lockdown, and being prepared to row back, will achieve that if done carefully, while at the same time getting the economy slowly back to normal.
And that probably are a lot more people are already infected without symptoms will help with that.
Trying to somehow contain the infection won't work, because it will just get carried in from the outside again, eventually.