OK, so say the death rate is in the range 0.5% to 1%. That would be 200k to 400k, which is pretty much the range of outcomes Imperial predicted with the various mitigation strategies. At this point it's just a question of basic numeracy. You have stated the policy is to allow 60% overall infection, but there is no world where that doesn't result in hundreds of thousands of deaths. The policy has changed to try and avoid that outcome.
At this stage I need to ask, are you wilfully being ignorant? As I keep repeating for the umpteenth time now a 200k-400k death rate from 60% infection or whatever past figures you've used are the figures if EVERYONE was infected PROPORTIONALLY. Do you understand what that means?
When you remove the at risk that number drops significantly. I'll illustrate this in a simple analogy so maybe you'll understand better; if hypothetically and hyperbolically we were to round up all the at risk individuals (the sick, the old etc..) and shipped them off to a remote isolated island where the virus could not reach and in the mean time we let the virus run loose on everyone else that was left you'd see a death rate of close to 0% if not outright 0%. This population would then develop immunity to it and if we then returned those at risk individuals back into general population you'd have herd immunity that would totally protect them.That is in the clearest sense what the government is trying to do hypothetically. I can't explain it any simpler than that.
This here shows that you don't understand population statistics. A difference of 0.1% and 0.01% on a population level is huge. Hospitalisation is rare on an individual level, but staggering on a population level. Even with 60% infection limited to under 65s spread out over 18 months, it would overwhelm the critical care capacity in the NHS by at least a factor of two. That's assuming all beds were allocated for COVID patients btw, and not accounting for the fact that something like 90% of critical care beds are currently taken. So, given that I think the real number is something like a factor of 10.
On a population level, COVID is significantly more dangerous than the flu, even amongst the young. Your comparison is dangerous and disingenuous.
I understand population statistics, it's you that's running with WHO statements without understanding the meaning or figures behind it. I'll educate you.
What do you want to class as "young"? Lets say under 30. Looking at that stats by ICL we see that 0.0126% of under 30s die from this virus. This ALL under 30s. So that includes those people at risk that have an underlying health condition. Stats have shown that people with those underlying health conditions are at least 5 times more likely to suffer severe reactions to this virus. So for healthy under 30s we could be looking at death rate of 0.0025%. That's death rate, looking at hospitalisation we see that around 0.53% of ALL under 30s will require such due to contracting the virus. Looking at just healthy individuals we see that it's 0.106%. Now lets look at people that will require critical care, it's 0.0265% of ALL under 30s. So it's ~ 0.0053%. Hospitalisation in the UK for flu for under 30s is around 0.2%. So you're just wrong on every level.
What the WHO was saying this on a literally sense young people are not immune to the virus. And that is completely accurate. They're speaking to those spring breaker types that think they are literally immune to the virus. Of course they're not.
Again, you're wrong here. The Imperial report only discussed herd immunity in context of mitigation.
No they discussed herd immunity and the lack of it in both cases.
They admit that a problem with suppression is that there is no herd immunity, and so suppression and extensive controls have to continue for many months (maybe 5+).
No not "no herd immunity", they say "less" AND depending on how stringent the suppression methods are. And they don't say it needs to continue for 5+ months, they say it needs to continue indefinitely until a vaccine is developed.
The current recommendation is not to acquire herd immunity through 60% infection over any timescale. The current policy is suppression to get the retransmission rate R₀ to as close or below 1 as possible.
Again if that were the case we'd have seen a complete lock down days ago. This is beyond obvious. Why is a fairly high level of social interaction being allowed if the aim is to reduce R0 to below 1? Because they're allowing for herd immunity.
Look, I appreciate you're doing your best to read all this and keep yourself informed. I get it - it's all very confusing. It doesn't help that the govt has basically done a total U-turn this week either.
Awww, this is sooo cute! Doesn't really jive though since I've had to correct you numerous times on gaps on your knowledge.
So, lets do this in summary. If 60% of people in the UK get infected at 0.5% mortality then 200k people die. Everyone agrees that's unacceptable. So, the policy has now changed to get the retransmission rate as close to 1 as possible, or ideally beneath 1.
I don't know if I should keep doing you the courtesy of assuming you're intentionally ignoring the correction I keep making to this misconceived or you're just no intellectually capable of understanding it. Either way I'm not going to example something again when I've already explained it 9 times.
Also, COVID is incredibly dangerous. There is no mild COVID, not even for young people.
Yes their is, if you'd read the ICL report like you claim you did then you'd have seen this. Instead you read a news article about the WHO saying young people aren't immune and have somehow extrapolated that you mean that young people contract severe cases of the virus commonly.
Comparisons to flu are dangerous and disingenuous.
Comparison between flu in healthy young people and COVID-19 in healthy young people is accurate.
This last point it something I really want to get you to agree on - herd immunity means thousands of people, even young people, die before their time.
In your bond villain fictional idea of herd immunity maybe. But no one with a modicum of intelligence has suggested it in the way you're. I've explained that 10 times now. I'm going to need to put you on ignore for my own sanity. Bye
www.google.co.uk
www.google.co.uk
twitter.com
www.theguardian.com
