🇳🇱
Some Hard information on #COVID19 as compared to other epidemics in recent history.
==COVID-19==
R0 = 2.2
Global Mortality: 7%
Death Toll = 4,718 (and rising)
== 2009 Swine-flu ==
R0 = 1.5
Global Mortality: 0.04%
Death Toll = 500,000
== 2002 SARS ==
R0 = 3
Global Mortality: 9.6%
Death Toll = 349
== 1920 Spanish Flu ==
R0 = 2
Global Mortality: 2.5%
Death toll = 100 million
For those who don't know R0 is the average number of people who will contract the disease from an infected individual.
As you can see the numbers are very concerning. The only disease that had the same potential for damage as this would have been the SARS epidemic in 2002. Luckily it was contained early on and never spread. The big difference seems to be the 2002 SARS epidemic had very few if any asymptomatic individuals. So it was easy to stop the disease before it spread (artificially lowering the R0 effectively).
However the COVID-19 has a large portion of people with the disease whoa re asymptomatic. This causes the spread to go unhindered. Despite having a lower R0 and lower mortality rate the death toll is already more than 10x what it was for 2002 SARS.
The numbers are scary, it suggests to me, we are in for some really nasty times ahead...
If not put in check the disease will eventually affect close to everyone (the logistic model is asymptotic) this means a lot of people taking hospital beds, much more than we have beds available. And there goes another chunk of the population that couldn't be treated(of cowonaviwus or something else).
No one has immunity to it, that means that anyone exposed to it is very likely to catch it. This means health professionals are very likely to catch it. Health, which is an expertise game. The best doctors are usually the oldest and most experienced.
All true.
Thought keep in mind what "putting the virus in check" means.. Our best efforts now will slow down the epidemic. This is a good thing because as you said there are a limited number of beds and a shortage of hospital staff. So if you can spread the disease out over a longer period of time then we wont go over-capacity and more people live.
But its important to note that those measures, while they may save some lives, it wont reduce the number of people who get effected. The virus is out int he wild now, there is no reversing that.
@freemo @KatGoesWoof Hi. Doesnt the virus need a warm human host to survive? (I heard it died after 12 to 24h)
So it would die in the nature if we are all home. And if we are all home, after 2 weeks it will be quite clear who's been infected and who's not, making it much easier for sane people to not get infected. No?
Then we'd have to lockdown all sick people to keep it contained, if the number is not too huge..
Seems a hard task indeed
Yes and no. It does die in nature like most viruses. But everyone quarantining will not stop it for a few reasons.. 1) you only need a single infected person for it all to startup again, remember this started with just one person 2) there are a large number of asymptomatic carriers so even after quarantine you wont know who has it and who doesnt 3) the quarantines are self imposed and people still gather in small groups.
Quarantine is not, and never was, about reducing the number of people who get effected throughout the whole epidemic, that number will be the same no matter what at this point (the herd immunity point for the population). It was always about spreading out the pidemic and cases over a longer period of time to not overload healthcare facilities.
