Good, thank you for the links! At this moment Italy is at 0,057% death rate. So if you believe the covid death rate is 0,1% it means you assume 34,422,300 Italians already were infected but only 242,000 were reported? As I pointed out to you before it is indeed hard to know how many cases go unreported but none of the research that is done so far comes even close to your assumption here. With regards to the second wave I don't agree with your assumptions either: 1) There might well be a second wave, especially if measures are not followed or relieved too much. Governments will have to carefully evaluate on a weekly basis and adjust measures. 2) The main reason there are ONLY 34,914 deaths in Italy is because there was a lockdown and very strict measures. Without measures deaths would have been way way higher. Lockdown helped in flattening the curve quickly. Without lockdown it might also have been possible but it would have taken a lot longer. Problem is: nobody knows for sure what would have happened. Also: without lockdown the population probably would not have taken the measures as serious. CONCLUSION: it is simple math indeed: 0,1% death rate does not make sense since it would mean for every reported case there are 142 cases that went unreported.
Sorry, it is not clear to me what you are trying to prove here. I completely agree with around 80% of people infected having no or minor symptoms. Doesn't mean the other 20% are not a major problem for every health care system worldwide. About the virus being airborne: it is not clear yet exactly as far as I understand. But saying all measures are useless because the system as a whole is not watertight is not correct. The curves from countries all over the world clearly show the lockdowns and other measures did work.
No your being a bit too anal there, there are death rates all over, NYC 0.166% so 0.1% is a easy to type average expected number that's all. There will be no 2nd wave where the numbers are anywhere near 0.1%, florida is having a 2nd wave but it's really just 1st wave attempt to, it's on 0.016% so it's barely been around, the effect of a very early lockdown, currently there not doing a lockdown as they don't think it's required and they've been through that hell for well nothing really already. Your obsessed with Lockdowns, if Italys lockdown did more than just slow it, then like Florida it would of shot up straight after lockdown removed, which was 2months ago. Sweden no lockdown, 0.05% less than NYC / UK / Spain / Italy, lockdowns aren't magic. Yes for every case that needs hospital care you have 142 infections where they don't and 80% of those don't even have symptoms as the link above. Then 4.2% of tested positive cases die over all in the US. so (1/142)*0.042 = 0.03% so something wrong with the math somewhere.
I'm trying with logic and math's, remove the FEAR from the media, so we can get our lives back and stop screwing ourselves up, our kids will suffer the effects of this for years to come. 80% = no symptoms at all. 18% = mild symptoms. 1-2% require hospital treatment. Airborne, so the 2meter distance in shops is pointless, the main place the virus is spread is shops, tubes, buses because of airborne, they removed all the low risk stuff, but kept the high risk stuff, so might aswell in the UK of just not had a lockdown at all.
I have no idea how many beds were available/filled in UK. Tried looking it up but could not find it immediately. It is quite possible UK never got into trouble in this area, but again: that is THANKS to the measures and lockdown. Many or even most other european countries only just managed even after creating extra capacity. Things would have been a disaster without strict measures and lockdown, many more people would have died and that is not acceptable. I have no idea how you can say "nobody is in a position where the health care can't cope". Even in Belgium we were pretty close, and our ratio beds per capita is quite high. In certain regions in Italy and Spain things did get out of control. What is the damage of the lockdown? Economical yes, but here I think you are overreacting. Worst impact probably was on schooling of the kids and leisure activities/events/hotels/bars. Many companies discovered that working from home is not as problematic as they assumed it would be.
Turveyd, We were talking about the numbers in Italy, let's stick to those instead of jumping to new numbers otherwise we will keep on turning in circles. Yes for every case that needs hospital care you have 142 infections where they don't and 80% of those don't even have symptoms as the link above. Then 4.2% of tested positive cases die over all in the US. I think the reasion the math seems wrong to you is you are confusing cases that need hospital care and registrered cases here. These numbers are not the same, they are not even close to being the same. Only a percentage of registered cases is hospitalised. The others get registered because they went to the doctor with mild symptoms or because they got tested for another reason (work, random test, visiting someone in hospital, ...) 80% = no symptoms at all. 18% = mild symptoms. 1-2% require hospital treatment. 80% of what? Total population? Registered cases? Correct numbers for registered cases are: 80% of registered cases: no symptoms or mild symptoms not needing hospital treatment 20% of registrered cases: hospital treatment. 6% of registered cases: Intensive care As we discussed before exact percentages for total population can only be estimated since it is not clear how many cases go unreported and it is likely to assume people with symptoms are over-represented in the registered cases. But before you jump on that: only slightly, nowhere near to where they would support your numbers above.
I have homes in South France, Québec, Canada and Chicago, Illinois. Currently, lockdown here in Québec, Canada (primary residence). Borders schedule to re-open later this month...I'm not in a rush to go anywhere outside of my province. I'll let others be the canaries in the coal mine. By the way, strongly doubt its practically over already unless a vaccine and approved treatment has been developed and available to all countries. Lets put it this way, my measuring stick for when its practically over already is when Europe allows Americans / China to travel to Europe and the same with Canada opening the borders to the U.S. or hospitals are giving out vaccine shots to the elderly and vulnerable communities. wrbtrader
I think we won't see the full impact on the economies until the end of the year. As for academics (universities, high school and grade school)...they'll find work around but it will be a financial problem for many schools that losses a lot of money from their sports programs that brings in a lot a funds that supports other school sports and salaries of the university. I wouldn't be surprise if some universities declare bankruptcy. Also, I doubt many top tier schools will be able to charge parents the same costs for online academics in comparison to the full real university student experience. There's going to be a ton of cost cutting, job losses every where within months after a full re-opening. Yet, strong economies prior to the Pandemic...they'll eventually bounce back with a lot of changes with the new normal. wrbtrader
I am afraid you are right here. Don't get me wrong, contrary to what Turveyd was accusing me off I am not a fan of lockdowns or other measures unless they are absolutely necessary. I honestly believe most governments took the right decision in the circumstances as they were. Now that the numbers are low and people trained in social distancing, washing hands, masks etc... hopefully the impact on economy will keep on decreasing from now on. But it will be a new normal for a while, the old normal will probably not come back for another year at least.