[kerkeslager]

Okay, what number do you think is the worst possible case? Is there a reason to believe that there's a nearly 100% chance that people will get infected?

It's true that 5 was just a number out of a hat, but I think you'd have a hard time picking a big enough number that it invalidates my point. Even if you pick 100 as you're claiming, you're still looking at a double-digit percentage chance of not getting infected, which you're taking away from people by deliberately infecting them.

Incidentally, saying "If we assume" is different from saying "We can assume". I'm not assuming that number, I'm merely highlighting it as one of the many possibilities.

[craftinator]

> Okay, what number do you think is the worst possible case? Is there a reason to believe that there's a nearly 100% chance that people will get infected?

Based on the number of people testing positive for the antibodies ([0] something like ~21% of random tests in New York), and given that the average estimated R0 is really high, I think ~100% of people being infected by this time next year is a pretty reasonable assumption. This also indicates that the death rate we previously estimated is much lower in reality. Infecting a few more young, healthy people and supervising their health seems a pretty good deal for the world at large.

[0] https://www.livescience.com/covid-antibody-test-results-new-...

[kerkeslager]

Well, I'd love to see that actual study and peer reviews of it. A previous study saying something similar turned out to be done by a hedge fund manager who used it to argue for reopening businesses, and while peer review is still pending, preliminary reviews by other scientist have called it bullshit (only in nicer terms). So you'll excuse my skepticisim here.