Of course, the true number of infections is likely higher than this, but even so it's interesting to know how long these high numbers would have to be sustained
-
-
Show this thread
-
Regardless, even if the true number of infections were 650,000 a day, and we were looking at a 50% rate of infections, it would still take just under a year with these numbers, assuming no reinfections
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
65000 confirmed infections also leads to 650 deaths. A year at that is 240,000 deaths. Unacceptable to me.
-
If humans did not fight disease there wouldn't be any humans. This is not a deal. With some alien who wants tribute. The virus adapts to us and kills and will never stop. Unless that brain of ours fights back
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Assuming the immunity is permanent and one cannot be reinfected.
-
Right? This is not a safe assumption, nor is the belief a vaccine will silver bullet this.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
... and the infected survivors would maintain immunity for 6-18 months before becoming susceptible again. We can't get off this treadmill that way. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31482-3/fulltext …pic.twitter.com/0zPX5PuxlE
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Except it isn't 65k infections per day, it is 65k CONFIRMED infections per day. I'm not sure what the recent serology surveys are saying, but earlier in the epidemic, it wasn't uncommon for the US to be missing ~10 infections for every one it confirmed.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Factoring exponential growth?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.