|
Re: Hmm,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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.
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?
|
I think the death rate isn't as important as the hospitalization rate. The drain on the resources is hospitalization. The pretty consistent figure I've seen is 20 percent get sick enough to warrant hospitalization. We turn them away, and that death rate starts to get much, much higher.
__________________
"In the olden days before the internet, you'd take this sort of person for a ride out into the woods and shoot them, as Darwin intended, before he could spawn."--Will the Vampire People Leave the Lobby? pg 79
|
