Quote:
Originally Posted by C. C. Rider
There were many wild estimates by the experts in the very early stages of this CV situation, but more recent data suggest that these estimates were likely off by several orders of magnitude.
Besides, whatever number of cases it takes to achieve herd immunity doesn't change to any significant degree whether we choose the fast track route or the slow track route. It's kind of like the guy said on the old motor oil commercial on TV... "You can pay me now or you can pay me later."
|
Where is the more recent data for an order of magnitude (10 times) less? Please provide a reference as I'd like to see that. Dr Birx gave a 2.2M number just last week so I'd like to know who disputes that and what their credentials are (certainly not as good as Dr Birx who is the most reputable person in that field)
The choice is between being able to treat people in hospitals, and being overwhelmed and letting people die who ordinarily would have had a good chance of surviving. Flatten the curve and we can save many more lives. It's a fallacy to believe that the economy would continue as normal as people were dying around us.
There are lessons to be learned from the 1918-1920 epidemic. This is probably going to last a while unless we are fortunate and develop a vaccine quickly. Anything we do to buy time is helpful. Data will also help.
The TV commercial was a bad analogy. The choice is get it now with limited medical resources and little data, or later with ample medical care and plenty of data. I'd chose the later in a heartbeat and I'm not in the "vulnerable" risk group.