(02-25-2020 04:09 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-25-2020 03:14 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  That’s true as far as it goes. But let’s suppose the prediction is correct at the low end — 40% global infection rate. And let’s further suppose the death-rate for infected people is at the low-end of what has been measured so far — about 3%.

That’s still a global death-toll of well over 80 million people.

except that those assumptions that you're trying to paint as conservative are actually very aggressive.

I can't think of an easy way to say this, but as the infection spreads, so too will human immune systems adapt. Similarly, lots of people already have the disease, developing those immunities... but we don't know about it because they're asymptomatic... this is what would cause such a wide spreading of the disease... meaning the actual death rate is likely a fraction of what we're seeing.... not because the numerator is smaller, but because the denominator is a multiple of what is being reported.

80 million would be about 130% of the number of people who died last year globally from all causes.

Pandemics dont care. Pretty sure 1917 deaths were well below 1918 deaths. That said---I dont think we will hit those numbers because we will take actions like they did in China. You'll see shutdowns and a massive decrease in discretionary human interaction/activities.

As far as human immune activity---improvement happens after contact---not before (thats what a vaccine does). Now one positive thing could happen is that the virus itself might mutate to something less dangerous. But, by that token--- it could do the opposite as well (become more dangerous).