I can't see the slightest basis for such an assumption. This an extremely infectious, quickly spreading disease. 30% of the US population seem like a more likely estimate.
SK has a 1.3% fatality rate at the end but that was with a functioning health case system. If even 1% of the US population get infect, the health system won't be function and you'll have a higher fatality rate.
Ioannidis addresses this in the article. Extensive community spread is actually unlikely to be the case for this virus, epidemic development is hard to discern from simply increasing rates in testing and sensitive populations seeking testing, and maybe most importantly there is little evidence that lockdowns and other extreme measures have significant impact on reducing this sort of respiratory infection, he cites this paper. [1]
" The highest quality cluster-RCTs suggest respiratory virus spread can be prevented by hygienic measures, such as handwashing, especially around younger children.[...]Global measures, such as screening at entry ports, led to a non-significant marginal delay in spread. There was limited evidence that social distancing was effective, especially if related to the risk of exposure."
The question remains however why we ought to treat concerns about data about the virus different than concerns about data about the response to the virus. Why do we treat the virus like a black swan event, but not the unprecedented response of shutting economic and civil liberty down to a degree maybe not seen in 100 years?
It seems ironic that people critize Ioannidis for a sort of first-order error in thinking by not considering uncertainty. Yet causing damage and applying first-order thinking to disruption of global supply chains that likely will drive entire nations into deep recession and instability is apparently adequate.
Yeah, and if any of those other viruses caused a world wide pandemic, I missed it. The article is a specious disaster.
Why do we treat the virus like a black swan event, but not the unprecedented response of shutting economic and civil liberty down to a degree maybe not seen in 100 years?
An extreme provokes an extreme response? Of course?
Human lives are more important than economies. And economies can't function with massive loss of life anyway. Even more, this is a massive exogenous shock. Once it's done, the various players can pick up the pieces. Until then, it should be treated like a war. Society trumps economics (hopefully, otherwise both are headed for disaster, 1 million deaths+ was the Imperial College Report estimate for what happens if the US does nothing).
They do actually. Several of the outbreaks studied among the papers were influenza pandemics, coronavirus pandemics, and SARS. (page ~110-120)
This rhetoric you're starting here about bringing out the war drums to fight invisible enemies is exactly what Ioannidis is afraid of. It is not scientific, it is not based on evidence, and it does not, weigh the tail risk of a global economic breakdown. Which may, in fact, be literal war in some places.
There is a trade-off between the economic effects and response to the virus. It is not a binary question.
I’ve read from various sources influenza cause multiple hundred-thousand deaths every year.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/cdc-says-more-people-die...
Science is a means of discovering the most likely state of things and an always uncertain one. Other human institutions have to come into play when it is necessary to act. Those institutions make the trade-off rather simply calculating them. In the current context, the institution of a war is appropriate (more appropriate than all the semi-wars we've had over the last 50 years in fact, better than "war on drugs" or "war on terror"). We confronted by tiny semi-living creature that happens to be very good at killing us. We should band together and engage in unified, determined action to protect ourselves.
As far the economy goes - the economy is a phenomena of society. The productive machinery should kept going as much as practical and the entire process managed by the government, essentially a machinery akin to WWII needs to be in place for the duration of this. Such war measures kept things running at that time and there's little reason to think they wouldn't work today. Now, as far as lots of people losing their investment. Well, sorry, investments aren't life. This, in a sense, very quick trip from 1929 to 1948 for y'all.
The lockdown in Italy has, thankfully, seemed to limit the virus to sublinear growth, using the very small sample of the past three days.