Their theory: far more people have been infected than anyone thinks, so the actual upper bound on deaths may be lower.
This is empirically testable with serosurveys. Singapore developed first serology test a month ago. There’s been much more work since.
sciencemag.org/news/2020/02/s…
This is empirically testable with serosurveys. Singapore developed first serology test a month ago. There’s been much more work since.
sciencemag.org/news/2020/02/s…
See previous threads on serology and serosurveys.
*If* this theory was accurate, this would be an insanely contagious virus that ripped its way through the world population in weeks rather than months.
All deaths would come in the last few weeks as it achieved max scale — right before it ran out of people with severe cases.
All deaths would come in the last few weeks as it achieved max scale — right before it ran out of people with severe cases.
That is, to reconcile:
1) high absolute numbers of severe cases (flooded hospitals, etc)
2) With as *low* a severity rate as they’re proposing
The scale of virus and its growth rate would have to be incredibly high. All the “rare” severe cases would then turn up at the end.
1) high absolute numbers of severe cases (flooded hospitals, etc)
2) With as *low* a severity rate as they’re proposing
The scale of virus and its growth rate would have to be incredibly high. All the “rare” severe cases would then turn up at the end.
I definitely do think we should do serosurveys. That’s cheaper than a trillion dollars and best way to resolve empirically.
But a major counterargument to the theory is that H1N1 pandemic took months to get around the globe. Is this so much faster?
But a major counterargument to the theory is that H1N1 pandemic took months to get around the globe. Is this so much faster?
