= new reply since forum marked as read
especially (and I am not ready to believe this) the 
is 6.0 and not the 2.5 to 3.5 that has been previously accepted.
Take where I live (Sweden) for instance.
We are only testing people who are either
1. symptomatic AND in a high risk group
OR
2. if you go into an ICU with suspected COVID-19
and even with that the death ratio is only 8.7%, in reality it is probably under 2%.
https://c19.se/en
There isn't anything REMOTELY approaching double-digit (let alone 40%) lethality for COVID-19.
SARS-CoV-2
I am really tired, lol.
Last edited Sun Apr 12, 2020, 06:48 AM - Edit history (1)
lethality rate of to 40% (which is just insanely overstated) the result would be 10's of millions dead.
The EU dwarfs the US as a whole, both in population (around 450m after the UK left) and economically, even after my fellow Brits stupidly voted to leave.
If just 20% of that 450m got COVID that yields 36 million dead IF it had a 40% lethality rate.
And in reality, EUROPE (the virus does not give a fuck about borders) as whole has around 750 million people
so at a 20% infection rate (which is super low from where it will end up) at 40% lethality equals 60 million europeans dead.
If the virus has a of 3.0, that means to hit herd immunity around 66.7% need to catch the virus
that would equal, again at 40% lethality, 200 million dead (for all of Europe), although you start to get into variables at that high a lethality rate and that level of viral penetration as well, as so many dying off can start to obstruct the dispersional pathways available to the virus.
To whit, essentially 'hundreds of millions of Europeans actually would test positive for CV if we had only already tested them' ... and asserting that the 40% must be wrong because of what the number of dead would be based upon that WAG.
Look, I don't believe anywhere near 40% for a second, and I've argued as to why it's wrong above, so I'm not disagreeing with you about the outcome in that regard.
But we don't actually KNOW that a single person who's not been tested actually has CV. However, such a number can be estimated statistically, but the proper methodology for coming up with than number should be adhered to (it would involve looking at % of negative tests and various adjustments derived from that) ... one shouldn't just make up a number offhand when one does that.
The numbers used by the OP are based on 'known cases' and the argument against it should also be based on known cases. Or more specifically, in this instance, the reason(s) why the 'recovered' numbers are much lower now than what they will eventually turn out to be.
MHO 
To whit, we do not KNOW, but we can infer based on statistics how many more people are likely to be infected ... in addition to the known cases. In fact, 'what formula should be used to derive that number', is at the very heart of what we're talking about.
The argument of yours I originally took issue with was your assertion that: IF the OP's calculation of 40% were actually correct, we WOULD HAVE 10's of Millions of Dead NOW ... in Europe. I.E. the LACK of 10's of Millions of dead bodies is de-facto PROOF, that the 40% is wrong.
If you cannot show how you derived that >=50,000,000 in Europe is the 'correct number' of infected people, when we know that only 680,000 have tested positive, then your counter-argument to the OP's ... has not been proven.
I am not in any way promoting this 40% number ... I'm just saying that the lack 10's of millions of dead Europeans ... is not proof that it's wrong ... UNLESS you can show that 50,000,000 Europeans are infected.
It's that simple. And this is like a 6th grade math word problem we're talking about here.
I love ya BTW Celerity
HYPOTHETICAL viral penetration rate, and the largest was what you have to get to (in the absence of a vaccine) to achieve herd immunity given the value of the virus at 3.0. I used those to show the absurdity of a 40% lethality rate, as many contagious diseases get to those larger levels of populace infection rates. I NEVER SAID that the penetration rate for COVID-19 was anywhere NEAR THOSE LARGE numbers at the present time, but it most definitely could get up there if we massively fail at mitigation, and/or a 2nd, or even 3rd wave rolls through. The higher the is the greater the percentage of the populace infected needs to be for herd immunity to kick in.
For brevity's sake, I will not even start to get into mutagenic possibilities for the virus.
A contagious disease with an of 2.0 means 50% or so of the populace needs to be infected in order for herd immunity to kick in. An of 2.5 means around 60% need to be infected, and an of 3.0 means 66.7% of the populace needs to be infected in order for herd immunity to kick in. COVID-19 has been postulated to have an of between 2.0 and 3.5. It is basic science that I was using.
I will add one thing, and I have doubts over this, BUT I have seen a couple epidemiologists on MSNBC who are now saying that they think COVID-19 has an of 6 or so. If that is the case, we are well and truly fucked until a vaccine comes around.
The (R-naught) value is how contagious a disease-causing pathogen is.
https://www.healthline.com/health/r-nought-reproduction-number
Understanding the possibilities
R0 is pronounced “R naught.” It’s a mathematical term that indicates how contagious an infectious disease is. It’s also referred to as the reproduction number. As an infection spreads to new people, it reproduces itself.
R0 tells you the average number of people who will catch a disease from one contagious person. It specifically applies to a population of people who were previously free of infection and haven’t been vaccinated. If a disease has an R0 of 18, a person who has the disease will transmit it to an average of 18 other people, as long as no one has been vaccinated against it or is already immune to it in their community.
What do R0 values mean?
Three possibilities exist for the potential spread or decline of a disease, depending on its R0 value:
If R0 is less than 1, each existing infection causes less than one new infection. In this case, the disease will decline and eventually die out.
If R0 equals 1, each existing infection causes one new infection. The disease will stay alive and stable, but there won’t be an outbreak or an epidemic.
If R0 is more than 1, each existing infection causes more than one new infection. The disease will spread between people, and there may be an outbreak or epidemic.
snip
You said, and I quote:
especially (and I am not ready to believe this) the is 6.0 and not the 2.5 to 3.5 that has been previously accepte"
That was the one and only statement I took issue with of yours.
In order for there to be 10's of millions (which is a minimum of 20,000,000 by definition) of dead Europeans, at a 40% death rate, there must be 50,000,000 infected. Currently we know of some 680,000 cases.
I simply asked you where you got the 50,000,000 from the 680,000.
I'm not making up any numbers, these are *exactly implied* from what you said ... that I took issue with.
To be very clear, I'm in no way insinuating that 40% is correct. I'm merely saying that I very much doubt that the lack of >=20,000,000 European bodies ... is a mathematically sustainable counter-argument.
The correct IMHO counter-argument involves showing why the 'recovered' number that the OP used in the denominator ... is not the correct number to use. He looked at Dead Vs. Recovered, and came up with 2 dead for every 3 recovered, which is 40% dead.
The proper answer involves explaining why that math is wrong. That's it. It doesn't involve throwing out random counts of dead Europeans ... pulled from thin air.
With that explanation, hopefully we're done. Love ya
and I shall correct it. I can see now what you were saying, and hope you see what I was saying as well.
cheers n hugz
I promise this debate would never have started 
Honestly I was kinda tripping that you weren't conceding the point, cause I know how smart you are ... but I figured once it 'clicked' you'd be like ... uh ... oh, ok, right ... I told you I was tired
markets overall and I am helping lead a departmental audit of open positions we have at the firm I consult for. Money never sleeps, to steal part of a title from a movie that ended with this wonderful tune.....................
has come from the subject line not being carefully parsed when I look at my pre-post final version. I think it has to do with my dyslexia, but am not going to fall back upon that as a crutch or rationale.
So why do people keep bringing the fact that not everyone is tested, even though it's completely irrelevant?
Maybe bad dental hygiene or wrong shoes?
The proper explanation for the OP involves explaining to him/her why how 'recovered' number they're seeing ... is actually far lower than it will eventually be. Out of the KNOWN CASES, which is the population from whence he's deriving his calculations.
