(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.)
3.5MM people in the US (at least) have already tested positive. Are you trying to imply that over 100,000 of these people have had a stroke?
More related to the article - isn't the latest IFR estimate from the CDC even less than 1%?
but yeah. US population, approx 330M, 59M of which are likely to be permanently fucked up by this virus and 3M permanently dead. not to mention the amount of people that died or got permanently damaged due to the fact that the hospitals were overloaded. They may not have been Covid patients but bleeding out from a undiscovered brain hemorrhage because the hospital was packed and the dr's overworked is still just as dead as 1% of covid sufferers...
> 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.