Hacker News Reader

Comment by enchiridion | Hacker News Reader

Around 15% require hospitalization. What do you think happens if they can't get it? My assumption is they die. Decimation (1/10 die) is accurate, if not an underestimation.

Edit: you also have to take the infection rate into account. Also indirect deaths. My point stands

View on HN

Inside the Wuhan quarantine zone the mortality was 5.8%. The virus has an R0 of 2.3, so herd immunity will kick in around 60% (2.3 * 0.4 < 1). That would result in an overall population mortality of 3.48%.

The initial Wuhan outbreak is completely inadequate for estimating the mortality of an unchecked wave. It was weathered with massive outside help, being surrounded by the most powerful and agile economy in the world and all that. The rest of the planet is hit concurrently, there are no unaffected regions left who could send help. And that local wave was successfully interrupted long before reaching anything close to herd immunity, so peak medical demand was still far below worst case.

Inside the Wuhan quarantine zone the ability to actually test for the disease was extremely overwhelmed. I know there's a paper somewhere estimating the actual number of cases and actual mortality rate based on the infection rate amongst people repatriated from Wuhan, and it wasn't that far above the ~1% everywhere else has seen.

I would consider my number to be an upper bound.

Everywhere else? Germany is the only country at or below 1% for top countries with the outbreak. China only had 4% Spain has 6% Italy 9% the US climbed to 1.3 this morning and will probably climb.

They may be inferior and insufficient, but poor countries do have hospitals too. Let's not overstate that either. Though yes, ultimately decimation seems likely.

But also poverty provides something of a barrier to travel, slowing coronavirus down. If it takes long enough to hit them, developed countries will be able to assist a lot more.

That would only happen if 100% of the population becomes infected at once. But when 60% has had the virus there will be so much immunity that the virus won't be able to spread anymore. So 10% mortality may happen in countries without healthcare, but not in modern countries.

Like Italy/Spain? When the system is overwhelmed death rates rise.

The reports from wuhan tell a story of difficult recovery. Young people 2 months recovered can't walk up stairs. 30% reduced lung function. If 60% get it that's a huge amount of people..

We can take the age profile of Venezuela[1] and the estimated hospital rates and general virus profile from the Imperial College report[2].

Assume 80% infection, and assuming that 100% of people who would have needed hospitalization die.

This is 720,000 people, or 2.5% of the population. However, if we just take the working-age population (65 and lower), and assume 50% survival rate instead of 0%, the deaths are just 0.79% of the total population.

So decimation is absolutely inaccurate and the higher-up poster is correct. Developing countries like Venezuela cannot afford to and should not shutdown their economies or societies.

[1] https://www.populationpyramid.net/venezuela-bolivarian-repub...

[2] https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/s...

A lot more people already fled Venezuela than the virus will ever kill there, that's for sure. Also, as a correction... Venezuela is not a developing country. It is de-developing.

This kind of message doesn’t get as many clicks though.

This creates additional problems you are not seeing.

Anyone still left in Venezuela now has the virus or had the virus. The virus is still going around in 6 months. Everyone outside of Venezuela has gotten rid of it. Wouldn't the country be a isolated because no other country could allow travel to avoid another outbreak.

Years down the road it would be still spreading probably morphing to something even more dangerous.

You would only do this if you were counting on a vaccine.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com