Please keep in mind I might be wrong, I just want to understand things outside of the hype.
So I don't buy all the hype, can somebody tell me why i'm wrong? I keep hearing claims from brilliant people that 50-80% of the population could easily be infected.
Exponential growth is obviously the answer, and is occurring because the median person is infecting more than one other person, which right now is coming from people not knowing they have the virus and not worrying about getting the virus. This will change as more people become infected. Assuming even the most BASIC of measures are taken, (people washing their hands, not going to crowded areas often, not travelling etc.) this will probably stop exponential growth.
In China, 5 people have been infected for every 100,000 citizens, and the virus isn't exponentially growing anymore. But fine, maybe they took good measures.
In Italy, it's closer to 20 people per 100,000. Fine, four times as high, but still a TINY portion of the population. If you assume that their graph will ever look anything like China's, there is no way in hell more than 1% of the population will be infected. It probably won't come within two orders of magnitude.
In what god forsaken situation could even 1% of the US get the Coronavirus?
Even without government intervention, as cases increase people will start taking this more seriously and the exponential growth will stop. Even if you don't have symptoms but have the virus, you aren't going to that concert or that vacation because you don't want to catch the virus from someone else. As long as you at most infect 1 other person, the exponential growth stops. This will happen way before 1% of the population is infected.
EDIT: I'm incorrect in the idea that people shouldn't worry about it, you should, but I believe that worrying about it will be enough to stop the exponential growth.
Those examples (China, Italy) have taken drastic measures to keep people from socializing, in order to slow the spread of the disease in order to not overwhelm the health system.
That's the killer - once you reach maximal hospital capacity, people die because of not only the severe virus infections, but because they can't get the required treatment for their other unrelated ailments as well (e.g. a stroke, or a car accident etc...). Italian doctors already have to make really hard decisions with regards to who they will admit into ICU since there are not enough beds for everyone.
So if only 1% of the country gets severe symptoms requiring hospitalization in the US, that's 3 million people needing intensive care unit beds, on top of the normal load.
Measures in Italy and China won't prevent 80% of the country to be infected (mostly, people will not need hospitalization - only a small fraction will), it only tries to reduce the number of people needing intensive care at the same time, in order to not overload the health system and save as many of them as possible (since they can't make enough ICU beds and equipment appear out of thin air)
EDIT: and of course, buy time until a vaccine or other treatment method is available...
It's just harsh restrictive measures are also not free. Sending economy into hard recession, disrupting supply chains etc will cause people to lose jobs, get under poverty line or not get above it etc. I think it would be a good idea to get more research on how to approach it, finding right balance. South Korea seems have curbed exponential spread and without much panic/hard disruption of everyday life, at least according to this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZqgMIrjKOQ
Even if you look at Italy, though, and if you assumed that their numbers were accurate (highly unlikely), 20/100k is only 5-6 doublings away from 1% of the population, or as little as 3-4 weeks if not properly contained.
Hopefully you're correct and it won't grow out of control and infect most of the world, but for now the idea is to keep the burden on the medical systems low to prevent knock-on effects of over-running our caring capacity.
Of course, that is the explanation for the exponential growth in the early stages. US citizens don't care right now. Once the virus grows, people will start being more careful, whether they have symptoms or not, because they don't want to get the virus. This along with some government intervention and businesses closing shop will destroy the exponential growth, as we see with China and will soon see with Italy.
Most countries (and leaders) and not taking this seriously until they are it HARD by it. They should learn from the nations that were first affected and not just minimize it with "They handled it badly, we're gonna be fine".
Norway now ranks near the top (around 4th) among countries in the number of infected people per total population. This happened rather suddenly over the past few days, and I tell you, the government has upgraded its response radically! For example, all events gathering more than 500 people are cancelled, and that limit may well be lowered in the coming days.
Most cases so far have been traced back to people coming back from a vacation trip to Northern Italy and Austria (ski resorts also popular among Italians), but now cases are popping up where health authorities are unable to trace the source of infection, and this, rather than raw numbers, is what has prompted the heightened alert level.
That's a good point, I suppose my argument hinges on the fact we can prevent exponential growth and if that isn't the case because the data is wrong...
I don't know if the most significant pandemic of the last century, that could be slowed if we implement unprecedented draconian measures in time can be over-hyped.
You assume exponential growth will just continue, which I am claiming is false with China as an example. If simple proper measures are taken, (which they will be once more people are infected) like shutting the majority of businesses down, restricted travel, people washing their hands and not going out of their way to concerts and big meetings, you don't have the exponential growth.
I agree, so let's assume the US doesn't intervene at all.
Exponential growth is occurring because the median person is infecting more than one other person, which right now is coming from people not knowing they have the virus and not worrying about getting the virus.
Even without government intervention, as cases increase people will start taking this more seriously and the exponential growth will stop. Even if you don't have symptoms but have the virus, you aren't going to that concert or that vacation because you don't want to catch the virus from someone else.
I think you are underestimating how irrational people are. Only yesterday I was speaking to someone who is hoping to get some discounted flights / hotels for a cheap holiday while this is all going on, as everyone else will be scared to travel...
Hell, I heard someone say that if we stay home and change how we live then the "virus has won.". I don't even know what I'm supposed to say to that.
They aren't scared right now because they are downplaying the idea that they could contract the virus, but once they start seeing more cases of people in their area / other travellers, they will change their mind. Very few people want to roll a dice with 5 / 6 sides giving you Coronavirus, they just aren't seeing the odds yet.
Not sure most would call these measures "simple", but they do indeed seem like something we could do. It wouldn't be hard, though, for some of these simple measures to kill more people than they save, via collateral damage.
Another point to consider is that this virus is apparently "novel", meaning that humans in general have not had time to build up significant immunity. Even if measures are taken, they will likely just push the date of infection for each individual out into the future some--most people will eventually be exposed no matter what.
You're putting words in my mouth, congrats. Every exponential in the "real world" eventually turns into a logistic curve. Can you tell me when the inflection point will occur? No? Okay, good luck to you and your family.
Are you posting in good faith? On the assumption that you are, China locked down at least 760 million people. Italy has locked down 60 million people. The economic consequences are going to be staggering. The virus would be almost impossible to eliminate without a vaccine, so once quarantine measures are lifted it would continue to spread quickly again.
It's pretty obvious if you separated people and kept them in their homes the virus would stop spreading. So what? The world cannot just stop forever. Life will go on, and so will this virus. It is with us now.
Unfortunately this is going to change your life and people you know are going to get very sick and die. Please tell the older people in your life to be very careful and DO NOT downplay the risks to them.
Please don't exaggerate. In another thread here on HN someone from Italy posted exactly what it's like. They go for walks, they go to bars or restaurants and maintain 1 meter distance between people, and if they need to care for a relative or someone else they're permitted to travel to other towns/cities.
Sure, people's lives are a bit different, but say they're on "lockdown" is simply not true.
This is not an exaggeration. Just because people are flouting the lockdown does not mean it isn't serious. This is not "a bit different." The PM just raised the severity of the closures today: https://www.repubblica.it/politica/2020/03/11/news/coronavir...
So I don't buy all the hype, can somebody tell me why i'm wrong? I keep hearing claims from brilliant people that 50-80% of the population could easily be infected.
Exponential growth is obviously the answer, and is occurring because the median person is infecting more than one other person, which right now is coming from people not knowing they have the virus and not worrying about getting the virus. This will change as more people become infected. Assuming even the most BASIC of measures are taken, (people washing their hands, not going to crowded areas often, not travelling etc.) this will probably stop exponential growth.
In China, 5 people have been infected for every 100,000 citizens, and the virus isn't exponentially growing anymore. But fine, maybe they took good measures.
In Italy, it's closer to 20 people per 100,000. Fine, four times as high, but still a TINY portion of the population. If you assume that their graph will ever look anything like China's, there is no way in hell more than 1% of the population will be infected. It probably won't come within two orders of magnitude.
In what god forsaken situation could even 1% of the US get the Coronavirus?
Even without government intervention, as cases increase people will start taking this more seriously and the exponential growth will stop. Even if you don't have symptoms but have the virus, you aren't going to that concert or that vacation because you don't want to catch the virus from someone else. As long as you at most infect 1 other person, the exponential growth stops. This will happen way before 1% of the population is infected.
EDIT: I'm incorrect in the idea that people shouldn't worry about it, you should, but I believe that worrying about it will be enough to stop the exponential growth.