Quote:
Originally Posted by Kovaz
One thing that's essential to understand:
When there was 444 official cases in Wuhan, we now know there was actually about 12,000 (27x higher). So waiting until we have a large number of official cases is too late. Especially since, as I posted earlier, cancelling things early vs. late is the difference between 50 in 100,000 vs. 250 in 100,000 people dying (St. Louis vs. Philadelphia during the 1918 spanish flu).
|
That is not true, the death rate doesn't change because you've gone into lockdown. By going into lockdown you slow the transmission rate and therefore ease the impact on the society (think hospitals, etc). The same number of people are likely to be affected in the long term, but what you want to avoid is an exponential spike which can cripple a country (see:Italy).
Edit: I may have misunderstood - were you saying the deaths overall will be less if you go into lockdown (true) or the death rate would go down (not true).?
Second edit: I have been doing some more reading and apparently I am actually wrong here, and it makes complete sense why. My apologies to Kovaz. If you go into lockdown and the system does not get overwhelmed you are far more likely to survive, so this does in fact affect the death rate.