Am I crazy? I listened to #Rutte and understand the pont for herd immunity. It allows a laisez faire approach after the pain is over.. however, for a visur with an R0 of 2.35 you need 43% of the population to be immune and been through the disease. (1/x)
So that means that some 7,493,610 people (minal) should have been through the disease. Assuming the GGD under reporting rate of 1/6th (rtlnieuws.nl/nieuws/nederla… ) that means that 1,248,935 should test positive (or at least have symptoms warranting testing) (2/x)
If we then assume a hospitalization rate of 12 % (jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/… ) (which is currently at 15% (205/1413, rivm.nl/nieuws/actuele…) this means 149,872 require hostpital care.
The netherlands currently has 332 hospital beds per 100,000; meaning 56440 in total. If we assume a critical care rate of 5% (again jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/…) this means 62,447 require critical care... There are currently around 1100 ICU beds in NL (link.springer.com/article/10.100…) (3/x)
Meaning that if we assume a time to recovery of 3 weeks (who.int/docs/default-s… ) that ALL hospital beds are occupied for 8 weeks, and ALL ICU beds are occupied for 170 weeks.. (4/x)
Even worse, assuming a fatality rate of around 3.6 % (thelancet.com/journals/lanin… ) , this would mean that this strategy leads to around 44,000 deaths when only the minimal required population for herd immunity has gone through the infection... (5/x)
In comparison, China had around 81000 cases and around 2900 fatalities (gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashbo… ). Please let me know where I am wrong as I have trouble believing the numbers... (6/x)
I put it online here : docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d…
Apologies for the typos... 😣
The very positive about the strategy is that it will introduce children to this pathogen at an early age (when it is relatively harmless to them as shown in the data) avoiding a lot of future sorrow. Just felt it was important to also mention that.
I don't want to cause a panic or suggest apocalypse. My apologies if I did. We still have great health care, great triage and the capacity is increasing! However I also want to be somewhat realistic, this is not a flu, this does require us all to minimize out social contacts.
One point not mentioned is that we have seen that containment can be successful. We have seen this in China and South-Korea. So I am assuming there is a very good reason why a choice is made for an untested over a validated strategy.
More great news from the clinical trial front! #science #drugdiscovery news.sanofi.us/2020-03-16-San…
I have been keeping track on the numbers. Interestingly the chinese scenario was highly predictable (between Jan 28th and March 3rd). Currently however, things are growing more rapidly then I predicted. Find them here : docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d… 
Happy about this communication @rivm . I am wondering however, why was first lockdown with subsequent maximal control not an option (remove the first peak and avoid the second and NEVER cross the threshold of ICU beds).
I would imagine that a state of lockdown can lead to control. Currently the spread is opaque. I would argue that gradually lifting a #lockdown allows you to better control an outbreak and attempt to control this. You are more or less creating a controlled starting point.
At the same time, a 3 week #LockdownHolland would limit the economic fallout as the time is relatively short. Taking away the argument against lockdown. Finally, by exerting control after lockdown you avoid the secondary big peaks, taking away the argument against lockdown.
