P.S. I have no confidence whatsoever that it’s ‘going to zero’, that that’s a realistic terminal boundary condition to include in grownup considerations and policy discussions
-
-
Replying to @soncharm @Steve_Sailer and
Practically speaking I agree; this isn't going to zero because the entire west is made up of failed states incapable of doing simple testing and quarantining of the infected.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @CovfefeAnon @Steve_Sailer and
Right. It’s not going to zero, unless of course we get a very good vaccine (which is not something that is reasonable to bank on). Which leaves us in the muddled middle of having to live with it. As long as it’s not growing, that’s good. Where does ‘herd immunity’ matter.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Which epidemics? Previous flu pandemics reached the levels of infection predicted by SIR. Measles reached that level in isolated populations without immunity from prior infections. There is no prior immunity from past infection for a novel disease so everyone is vulnerable.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @CovfefeAnon @euneaux and
Feels like a good time to mention that research going around (dunno how much truth, can’t evaluate) suggesting perhaps other coronavirus exposures do provide some sort of partial immunity to this one
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Runs into the problem of Lombardi; maybe some % of people there *didn't* have COVID19 and had the protective infection first (which shows up on serum tests as COVID antibodies). All that means is that COVID is that much more deadly to those who do catch it.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @CovfefeAnon @soncharm and
They can check old blood donations from 2019 to make sure they aren't getting false positive readings from pre-existing antibodies.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Steve_Sailer @soncharm and
Granting their assumption that some prior corona virus causes the body to produce the same antibodies as for COVID19 it still isn't good news; just means that the IFR goes from 1% to some higher number by lowering the denominator (I) while keeping the numerator constant (F).
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @CovfefeAnon @Steve_Sailer and
Already factored into the numbers, IFR is now thought to be in the .1% to .4% range, infection is basically harmless to the young and healthy -- like flu, except flu can be dangerous in kids while COVID-19 is harmless to kids. Average age at death for COVID is >80.pic.twitter.com/wYuXry3n4J
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
The *total death rate* of Bergamo reached .58% - pretty neat trick if the death rate from COVID is .1% - even neater a trick if fewer people were infected than otherwise supposed because of some kind of pre-existing immunity. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.15.20067074v3 …
-
-
Replying to @CovfefeAnon @Steve_Sailer and
Again, in the real world, if diseases behaved generally like they do where they break out, we'd all be dead already. We'd all have been killed off by Legionnaires and AIDS and a hundred different infectious diseases. Isn't that right?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.