|
|
|
|
|
|
by skeppy
2166 days ago
|
|
|
Help me. I’m confused. Is the author saying that 1% of the people who are diagnosed with it will die? (That’s how I read it at first). Or is he saying that 1% of everyone will die? Maybe that sounds like a dumb question, but I honestly don’t know if everyone is using the term “mortality rate” the way I think of it (which for me, until recently, was the first option above). I guess I don’t even know if it makes a difference. Won’t we all be exposed to it anyway, if we haven’t already? Some of us may never know if we were, and others (sadly) will know straightaway. If we can assume that nearly all of the USA (for instance) will be exposed and “catch” it, whether tested positive or not, then is the second version of “mortality rate”, in effect, the same as the first? I’m only asking because I honestly don’t know and there is so much speculation and confusion out there. Hoping that someone on HN who is much experienced (and maybe in the world of medical stats) can clarify this for me. |
|
|
(1) We beat the coronavirus. People no longer regularly get infected.
(2) Coronavirus is here to stay. We'll all get it eventually just like we all eventually get colds and the flu.
I think it's pretty clear at this point that (1) isn't happening, at least absent a vaccine. If we do get a vaccine, it may be a polio/measles type situation where we can eliminate the disease, or it may be a flu-type situation where we all just get vaccinated every year.
So focusing on (2), where we all get the virus. We don't know the exact mortality rate for those infected. We don't know how the rate varies for re-infections.
We do know that the mortality rate is lower if the hospitals aren't full. So the shut downs may be logical in terms of keeping the infection rate low enough that the hospitals don't fill up, if we think it's worth it.
Whether the mortality rate benefits are worth the economic harms is another question, though.