One possible good future - move out to rural area - work remote - change jobs more easily in a truly global labor market - fewer but longer drives with autonomous cars - 24/7 delivery drones - socialize online & in VR Physical social distancing, digital social networking?
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @balajis @DanielleFong
Better scenario: 65% of humans are gone. Nature recovers. The biosphere survives.
59 replies 8 retweets 102 likes -
Even in the absolute worst-case scenario the virus wouldn't kill more than a few % of the population.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
That's really not true, the virus could easily mutate into a more lethal strain, and the systemic problems this creates are causing famine now, which could get extreme, medical systems failures, and war.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
It's possible it could mutate into something more lethal and more virulent (hence why I said a few % and not like 1%) but we're not going to get 50% mortality with R=5 or whatever.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
unfortunately this conventional reasoning doesn’t necessarily hold here because the contagiousness is well before the lethality. so contagiousness and lethality no longer compete evolutionarily to the same extent
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
The big driver of transmission is asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic spread, since people who are very ill tend to self-isolate out of necessity. If lethality went up significantly, there'd probably be less of a window for asymptomatic spread.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I don't follow the logic here. The severity of the disease is all concentrated in the period have the maximum infectiousness. That could get worse without effecting the previous stages much.
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.