Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I think as you wash the adjustments upward and downward, the deviation from 2% remains minimal.
|
The adjustments are from the 4% figure, not the 2% figure, and the point is that if you really want to know, you need to actually do some sort of study, which is where the 2% figure came from.
Quote:
But even if it were 4%, at what point does the balancing of interests dictate we follow "wave" rollout of workers to resume living their lives? ...People going back based on healthiest and youngest first, lesser aged and/or healthy groups following in three week increments, old with big co-morbidities last.
We need to do something like that or we are going to have a depression that kills 20X what this disease could kill.
|
I'm a little amused at the idea that "we" can just decide that people should go back to work. It doesn't work like that, because people don't want to get sick and they don't want to die.
Also, assume that this disease kills 2% of the people who get it. And assume that "we" can just open up the country and that -- round, conservative numbers here -- 50% of the country gets the virus. So that's a death toll of 1% of the country. How do you get to the idea that the tanking economy is going to kill a fifth of the country?
eta: I guess what I'm implicitly saying is, when you throw numbers like that around, are you even thinking about them at all, or do you just something that sounds good in the moment?
