03-17-2020, 04:54 AM
quote:
Originally posted by ironyak
I wonder if most people's take away from the usually reported 2.4% or 4% death rate stats generally used is that 4 out of a 100 people will die. But that seems very contradictory to the per capita calculations.
Briefly, your per capita calculations don't account for the fact that there has not been 100% infection so while the deaths for the total population are small now, they would approach 3% or 4% IF everyone gets infected (which is what social distancing etc is trying to at least slow, or prevent if better therapeutics become available over time)
- "97% percent of people recover fine, what's the big deal?"
- "If I gave you 100 skittles and told you 3 of them could kill you.... I’m sure you would avoid the ****ing skittles"
https://twitter.com/MrDre_/status/1238612571193827335
I couldn't agree more that social distancing is very useful. I approach my risk of a car crash by wearing my seatbelt, defensive driving, etc.--of course, not to flatten out a curve but to increase my chances of a successful outcome (living).
I am confused about the curve though. I thought the point was that everyone will be exposed (I'm guessing this is different than infected, and healthy people aren't tested much...?) sooner or later, and that social distancing is to avoid crushing the medical infrastructure during peak death time, so more folks can avoid fatality.
I have always assumed that easily transmitted infections are nearly ubiquitous, and that most everyone is exposed during, say, a normal flu season. How are infection rates gathered? Are the unknown percentage of folks have no major symptoms assumed NOT to be infected? If they were infected and their immune system took care of it to the point of testing negative, never having a symptom--is that person considered never infected?
It is indeed ironic that the flaw you point out in the much lessor rates per capita assume 100% infection rate. Which should be "worse" in a way.
Stats are truly amazing. As are metaphors! I didn't know we had a choice of saying no to the skittles ingestion, only the _when_ of ingestion.
I think the motivation for social distancing is likely less affected by folks' understanding of the relatively abstract and altruistic idea of flattening the curve, and more affected by self-interest (I don't want to die, don't want my loved ones to die). Granted, flattening the curve affects that outcome as well, to a degree.
Sooner or later they are gonna get a skittles. Not so much something we can ****ing avoid.
Please don't read any of this as not supporting social distancing, etc. Maybe misleading stats and metaphors are what's needed to scare enough folks into social distancing for it to make a significant difference. It appears to be working so far.
Cheers,
Kirt