On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 8:58 PM Dave Long wrote:
(sorry if I'm behind; I'm on digest. do we have archives anywhere now?)
>
Try https://www.mail-archive.com/silklist@lists.hserus.net/ (appears to
have an expired certificate, hope they fix it soon)
Udhay
--
((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @
It might have been a cruel-but-rational strategy if you were prepared to
accept the increased mortality among vulnerable demographics. (I wouldn't
be.) (But I'm in a vulnerable demographic…)
But anyhow in recent days I've started seeing reports of permanent effects
among "recovered" victims:
> This also presumes that teh authorities can affect this outcome one way or
> another.
It's pretty clear that lockdowns have worked much better than we had any reason
to hope they would have. (our lockdown is working, and we still have 70-75% of
our workforce active).
So the question is,
> There's some evidence for the former due to a few random population
> sampling exercise
The random population sampling exercises I've seen say that *MAYBE* there are a
small fraction of people who have had it: say 3% of the population. (plus
minus, but call it more than 1% and less than
Got to say I am trying to understand the herd immunity concept as well and
falling short with COVID-19.
With a basic reproductive rate of around 3, it has been calculated that about
70% of population need to be infected. With a fatality rate of 0.5-1%, about
0.35-0.7 percent of a country's
On 22/04/2020 12:11, Amit Varma wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 4:28 PM Udhay Shankar N wrote:
>
>>
>> I assume you mean that it is not a good thing to actively work towards.
>> This also presumes that teh authorities can affect this outcome one way or
>> another.
>>
>
> Well, the idea is to
In The Netherlands, they have stuck to their guns about 'herd immunity' but
have also talked about managing it rather than just letting the virus run
its course. There was a lot of scepticism at first, but it looks like it is
working - though it is a model that perhaps only works for a country
On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 4:28 PM Udhay Shankar N wrote:
>
> I assume you mean that it is not a good thing to actively work towards.
> This also presumes that teh authorities can affect this outcome one way or
> another.
>
Well, the idea is to delay and mitigate till a vaccine is ready, while
On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 4:11 PM Peter Griffin
wrote:
> I keep hearing about a 'herd immunity strategy.'
> Isn't that, like, no strategy? Serious question. I mean, just let people
> get infected and let the chips fall where they may? What am I not smart
> enough to understand?
>
Herd immunity
The logic is that you isolate the vulnerable - those who are older and have
pre-existing conditions and then let the rest of the folks mingle. The
infection will spread by by enlarge won't cause any serious problems and
once the 2-4 weeks is over, and the immunity is built and they are no
longer
I keep hearing about a 'herd immunity strategy.'
Isn't that, like, no strategy? Serious question. I mean, just let people
get infected and let the chips fall where they may? What am I not smart
enough to understand?
11 matches
Mail list logo
