What would happen if we all just decided to go back to normal and not care about covid?

330,000,000 people in the US. 84% under 65. 1% mortality rate....that's still 2.8milion people under age 65 dead from Covid. Assume herd immunity at 70% and it's still 2 million people...not counting the people over 65 that still had lots of life left to live. And that's not counting the folks that have permanent lung damage from this, or other complications, and assuming the mortality rate doesn't climb when the hospitals get overwhelmed.

But hey, if you don't care about 2 million people dying from something preventable (has been brought under control nearly everywhere but here) then I guess no argument is going to be very compelling for someone so heartless.

Life would go back to normal you'd just hear of few more stories of people losing their Grandparents than normal, and extended sick days at work would go up.

You are correct that it is preventable. Those people should have chosen healthier lifestyles instead of relying on us to make them safe.

Everyone thinks they are going to beat the odds. That is why people play the lottery and go to Vegas. The lottery equivalent is if only one person in all of the US died of COVID-19.

If 2 million people could win the lottery every year almost everyone would play. If 2 million people died of shark attacks almost no one would swim in the ocean.

On the flip side you think everything should just open up because you think you and the people you know will all beat the odds and not get it. Maybe. Maybe the base jumper will be just fine, maybe that free climber will be just fine. Maybe grandma along with normal people should avoid base jumping though.

No matter how much you wish it was different people have different levels of risk they are willing to accept for themselves and depending on their ability to have empathy, others.

The original projection before COVID-19 was for 60.2 Million deaths worldwide in 2020. Births were projected to be 140.6 Million, for a net gain of 80.4 Million.

COVID-19 will barely put a dent in that.

If the entire world had the COVID-19 death rate per population of Sweden, at this moment there would have been 4.4 Million COVID-19 deaths out of a population of 7.7 Billion. (0.057%)

This is NOT the plague of the 14th Century.

just the facts, ma'am wrote:

330,000,000 people in the US. 84% under 65. 1% mortality rate....that's still 2.8milion people under age 65 dead from Covid. Assume herd immunity at 70% and it's still 2 million people...not counting the people over 65 that still had lots of life left to live. And that's not counting the folks that have permanent lung damage from this, or other complications, and assuming the mortality rate doesn't climb when the hospitals get overwhelmed.

But hey, if you don't care about 2 million people dying from something preventable (has been brought under control nearly everywhere but here) then I guess no argument is going to be very compelling for someone so heartless.

Also, the lives of people over the age of 65 really don't count. So, we do have that going for us.

@OP - SMH

not here wrote:

You are correct that it is preventable. Those people should have chosen healthier lifestyles instead of relying on us to make them safe.

This is correct. Never has an infectious illness been so closely linked to poor health choices or to old age which can be identified and given specific protection.

Maybe something like Mumbia, or at least the Mumbai slums:

https://english.alarabiya.net/en/coronavirus/2020/07/29/Coronavirus-in-India-Half-of-Mumbai-s-slum-residents-have-had-COVID-19-says-study

----

Over half the people living in the slums of Mumbai have had the coronavirus,

according to a city-commissioned study released Tuesday that raises fresh doubts

about India's official case numbers.

..

The western city of 20 million people is home to India's largest slum Dharavi, where

an estimated one million people live.

But deaths in the sprawling slum have not exploded, with local officials saying their

aggressive efforts to stem the spread of the virus has been effective.

(Yeah, yeah, very effective. Few politicians have gotten it I guess.)

The survey results suggested asymptomatic infections were "likely to be a high

proportion of all infections" and also indicated the virus death rate was likely to

be "very low", the study said.

--

Its not just about the Death rate . There are many patients that recovered only after an intensive treatment. Think what would happen with countries that have poor medical facilities

just the facts, ma'am wrote:

330,000,000 people in the US. 84% under 65. 1% mortality rate....that's still 2.8milion people under age 65 dead from Covid. Assume herd immunity at 70% and it's still 2 million people...not counting the people over 65 that still had lots of life left to live. And that's not counting the folks that have permanent lung damage from this, or other complications, and assuming the mortality rate doesn't climb when the hospitals get overwhelmed.

But hey, if you don't care about 2 million people dying from something preventable (has been brought under control nearly everywhere but here) then I guess no argument is going to be very compelling for someone so heartless.

The mortality rate is about 0.6% for people under the age of 70 using CONFIRMED cases. Given asymptomatic rates have been estimated to be as high as 50%, that means the true mortality rate for all people under the age of 70 is probably more like 0.4%. Given the number of people who have already had it and the fact that herd immunity will start to set in, the death toll in the US would likely be something like 300,000, or 0.1% of the population. Still a lot of people, but is the whole country worth destroying for 0.1% of the population?

As for people over the age of 70, a strong effort could be made to protect them. If we went completely back to normal, measures would probably only need to be taken for 2 months or so before we achieved herd immunity, and they could go back to their normal lives.

It’s not just deaths but also the fact that some people may potentially have heart damage, lung damage etc. This has been estimated to be a very high percent Of people who get the virus. It’s not quite as simple as who lives and who dies. Just wear a mask and we can go back to a more normal existence.

yafd wrote:

The mortality rate is about 0.6% for people under the age of 70 using CONFIRMED cases. Given asymptomatic rates have been estimated to be as high as 50%, that means the true mortality rate for all people under the age of 70 is probably more like 0.4%. Given the number of people who have already had it and the fact that herd immunity will start to set in, the death toll in the US would likely be something like 300,000, or 0.1% of the population. Still a lot of people, but is the whole country worth destroying for 0.1% of the population?

As for people over the age of 70, a strong effort could be made to protect them. If we went completely back to normal, measures would probably only need to be taken for 2 months or so before we achieved herd immunity, and they could go back to their normal lives.

If there is one thing we've learned from Covid-19, it's that making forecasts about what will happen is incredibly difficult. Everyone has been wrong, from the doomers to the deniers. Scientists have been revising their positions constantly in light of new evidence. Things we thought were true end up not being true. This usually does not mean anyone acted in bad faith or even did bad science per se (with a few exceptions, like the Surgisphere guy), it's just that we're dealing with a complex virus with a complex etiology and wide varieties of responses across the population, and with potential long-term health outcomes that we don't understand yet.

For my money, I'm getting out of the business of making predictions about what will happen, or what would happen if we do X or Y. No one knows. When it's been proved time and again that no one *really* knows what they're talking about, often through no fault of their own, the prudent route is caution. For many of us, the sacrifice is not that severe.

"Herd immunity" is a medical term for the % of the community you need to vaccinate. I'm imagining the COVID deniers are going stop talking about virtues of herd immunity when we ask 60% of the population to be sent for vaccination.

We haven't destroyed the country, or if we do end up destroying it, it isn't inevitable. 0.1% of the population died during WWI and a federal holiday was established in their remembrance!

There are serious doubts about "herd immunity" as most people are using the term. There is more evidence that there is unlikely to be a "herd immunity" threshold where the pandemic begins to decline. The reason for that it a person's immunity after being infected appears to be short (on the order of 2-5 months), which causes the number of infected to continuously fluctuate above and below the threshold - the virus becomes endemic (like many flu viruses) and keeps coming back in waves.

Covid is likely here for good. A saving vaccine (like for measles) is highly unlikely, and herd immunity is also unlikely. Advances in treatment to reduce deaths and (very unfortunately) constant wearing of masks in perpetuity are the two things likely to get the death numbers back down to where we are comfortable with them (i.e., the media stops making it the top story).

There are doubts but it looks like evidence is still hazy and some reasons to not lose faith in long-term immunity yet. My understanding is that there are studies not finding antibodies in tests after a few months. But that doesn't necessarily mean that person is still susceptible as immunity is more complex than antibodies.

The most compelling evidence in the favor of optimism is we've had Covid cases from March and few accounts of second cases. Although there are examples of people being positive, coming back to the hospital months later, and being positive again. (We've observed this locally. It's not clear whether it's a second infections or measurement error.) My fingers are crossed.

YMMV wrote:

not here wrote:

You are correct that it is preventable. Those people should have chosen healthier lifestyles instead of relying on us to make them safe.

This is correct. Never has an infectious illness been so closely linked to poor health choices or to old age which can be identified and given specific protection.

Really good point. People who choose to be elderly or asthmatic really deserve to die. I mean, who the heck would choose to be old and have asthma?

If you are stupid enough to make such choices then the world is probably better off without you!

What is the mortality rate for unnecessary automobile trips? How many lives would be saved if people simply exercised a bit of common sense and made their double latte grande macchiato at home? Can anyone here put a number on it?

Bill Gates wouldn’t make his billions.

The question is disingenuous. Almost everybody cares about getting sick (and not just dying) or endangering others (especially friends or family members). So yes if you turned off human behavior, you’d have a ridiculous flu-type season a ton of deaths and a gigantic strain on the hospital system that would have many rollover effects. Maybe after 3 months of carnage, we’d be past the worst of it, but the carnage would be terrible.