Calculating The Actual Fatality Rate

[Lurker]

They don’t know anything you don’t. They are taking a gamble that just may turn out ok. We really have no way of knowing right now. Just the facts at hand to work on.

I don’t think anybody has said there is zero merit to any case for things to turn out very different from expected. There is no expected, in fact.

As you’ve said, though, are we ready to bet lives on it? I vote no way

My opinions haven't changed. As far as strategy, both local and country-wide, I still feel very strongly about stay-at-home orders to the detriment of the economy. I think it's also very telling that a strong majority of Floridians are against lifting the order.

That said, the numbers are what they are. Less than 1000 deaths in the entire state. There's something there I'm not seeing, and it's bugging me that I don't see it.

[Lurker]

This is totally unfair.
Is your approach betting lives?

Your approach is guaranteed to kill 60k+ lives!!! Is that fair?

I'm confused about this post. Can you please clarify?

[S209]

My opinions haven't changed. As far as strategy, both local and country-wide, I still feel very strongly about stay-at-home orders to the detriment of the economy. I think it's also very telling that a strong majority of Floridians are against lifting the order.

That said, the numbers are what they are. Less than 1000 deaths in the entire state. There's something there I'm not seeing, and it's bugging me that I don't see it.

Maybe the FL weather?

This would also go a long way to explaining California vs. NY, and in general the Southern states vs. the Northeast

[CountValentine]

I'm confused about this post. Can you please clarify?

To say that someone's approach is betting lives is not fair.
The stay at home approach is worse than betting lives. It is guaranteed to have 60k+ lives lost. Is it fair for me to say that? 

[S209]

To say that someone's approach is betting lives is not fair.
The stay at home approach is worse than betting lives. It is guaranteed to have 60k+ lives lost. Is it fair for me to say that?

I’m not understanding. Where have you seen anything that proves there will be a direct result of thousands of lives lost from staying home? Assuming that social distancing has a real impact on the virus transmission (which has been proven), social distancing vs. not social distancing is guaranteed to save at least many if not most lives that would otherwise be lost.

Nothing else is certain.

[CountValentine]

I’m not understanding. Where have you seen anything that proves there will be a direct result of thousands of lives lost from staying home? Assuming that social distancing has a real impact on the virus transmission (which has been proven), social distancing vs. not social distancing is guaranteed to save at least many if not most lives that would otherwise be lost.

Nothing else is certain.

It is a 100% certainty lives will be lost with the stay at home policy. You can argue about the amount but not if lives will be lost.
Now if you want to compare your approach to another approach and say your approach less lives will be lost that is fair. Just don't say the other approach is betting on lives.
Hope that makes it clear.

[Lurker]

It is a 100% certainty lives will be lost with the stay at home policy. You can argue about the amount but not if lives will be lost.
Now if you want to compare your approach to another approach and say your approach less lives will be lost that is fair. Just don't say the other approach is betting on lives.
Hope that makes it clear.

I think there's a fundamental difference between saying lives will be lost while people stay at home and saying lives will be lost because people are staying at home.

[Lurker]

Maybe the FL weather?

Honestly, I discounted this because every scientist has discounted it, but... maybe?

[CountValentine]

I think there's a fundamental difference between saying lives will be lost while people stay at home and saying lives will be lost because people are staying at home.

Lets make this simple. Will people die with your approach?

[Lurker]

Lets make this simple. Will people die with your approach?

People always die. That's disingenuous.

[CountValentine]

People always die. That's disingenuous.

...so is saying their approach is betting on lives. Hope it is clear now.
If you want say someone is betting on lives just Google LAS major (no pun intended).

[cmey]

According to this
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/us-covid-19-herd-immunity-2020-4%3famp
herd immunity may kick in at 50% since the R0 of covid is relatively low. NYC is getting a lot closer.

[Lurker]

...so is saying their approach is betting on lives. Hope it is clear now.
If you want say someone is betting on lives just Google LAS major (no pun intended).

You're right. The term "betting on lives" applies to both approaches, since they are both gambles with unknown consequences to human life. Maybe sacrificing lives is better.

[avromie7]

I wonder what the herd immunity rate is if everything is open with social distancing.

[Lurker]

According to this
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/us-covid-19-herd-immunity-2020-4%3famp
herd immunity may kick in at 50% since the R0 of covid is relatively low. NYC is getting a lot closer.

I wonder what the herd immunity rate is if everything is open with social distancing.

There's a thread here about people getting re-infected. Not a SK story, an actual case of a DDFer. Does herd immunity apply when there's a chance there is no actual immunity?

[avromie7]

There's a thread here about people getting re-infected. Not a SK story, an actual case of a DDFer. Does herd immunity apply when there's a chance there is no actual immunity?

link? I haven't seen anyone saying they were reinfected. I know people tested positive many weeks after symptoms, but there was no evidence the first infection was gone.

[Lurker]

link? I haven't seen anyone saying they were reinfected. I know people tested positive many weeks after symptoms, but there was no evidence the first infection was gone.

Lol, literally the thread above this: https://forums.dansdeals.com/index.php?topic=115871.msg2233920#new

[avromie7]

Lol, literally the thread above this: https://forums.dansdeals.com/index.php?topic=115871.msg2233920#new

I just saw it. Someone replied to it after my last post, that's why it's on the top now but I didnt see it.

[Lurker]

I just saw it. Someone replied to it after my last post, that's why it's on the top now but I didnt see it.

I know, it was lower before. I just found it funny.

[avromie7]

If you're assuming there's no immunity, then when can we open back up? We can't stay locked down forever. At some point we'll just have to take our chances and get back to quasi normal.