Retouched, thanks! Is that a subliminal invitation to point out that viri (or virii, even!) is not the plural of virus, which, in affable reciprocity, I would be glad to accept?Randorama wrote:I would not use the term "soothing" (it presupposes that one must be reassured from something that may be worrying)
Yesterday, Mr. Drosten discussed an important paper from Imperial College London (Mar, 16.), and the 1-2 years figure is mentioned there prominently as well: 18 months. The paper is geared towards the UK and the USA, but many aspects are helpful in general.
Spoiler
Some general assumptions that were made:
- It gives us a courageous estimation on the share of asymptomatic infections: one third.
- Average incubation time is 5.1 days
- Patients are infectious 12h before they show symptoms; Mr. Drosten considers that as too conservative; based on laboratory data and other sources he assumes about 24h
- Mortality rate per infection: 0.9% (higher rates like 3-4% only occuring during exceptional situations when the health system is overloaded and/or due to non-availability of test kits)
- Of infected people, 4.4% end up hospitalized. Out of those, about one third need artificial respiration. And out of those, about half will die (very specific to the age distribution of the catchment area, these numbers are geared towards the UK).
It is also made clear that just locking away the groups of highest risk wouldn't be enough, the surge limits for both general ward and ICU beds would be exceeded by at least 8-fold. The whole society has to participate.
The paper's bottom line message is grave, effects would be uncontrollable. If massive triage situations everywhere are to be avoided, consistent social distancing in the whole population is unavoidable, if necessary via curfew. Mr. Drosten went out of his way to conclude that one has to find shortcuts in developing and providing a vaccine and that we have to take extraordinary options into consideration, if one is to believe the numbers.
- It gives us a courageous estimation on the share of asymptomatic infections: one third.
- Average incubation time is 5.1 days
- Patients are infectious 12h before they show symptoms; Mr. Drosten considers that as too conservative; based on laboratory data and other sources he assumes about 24h
- Mortality rate per infection: 0.9% (higher rates like 3-4% only occuring during exceptional situations when the health system is overloaded and/or due to non-availability of test kits)
- Of infected people, 4.4% end up hospitalized. Out of those, about one third need artificial respiration. And out of those, about half will die (very specific to the age distribution of the catchment area, these numbers are geared towards the UK).
It is also made clear that just locking away the groups of highest risk wouldn't be enough, the surge limits for both general ward and ICU beds would be exceeded by at least 8-fold. The whole society has to participate.
The paper's bottom line message is grave, effects would be uncontrollable. If massive triage situations everywhere are to be avoided, consistent social distancing in the whole population is unavoidable, if necessary via curfew. Mr. Drosten went out of his way to conclude that one has to find shortcuts in developing and providing a vaccine and that we have to take extraordinary options into consideration, if one is to believe the numbers.
A little off-topic now, but there may be a misunderstanding emerging on the horizon, which I would be glad to dispel. Science itself shouldn't, or cannot, even, tell politicians if something is the right approach. In line with what I wrote earlier, it can inform decision making, however, discretion and/or decisions, are by definition up to politicians. If literally all we see is options, without emotions, we can never decide, as vivid examples like the case of Elliot, investigated by António Damásio, show us. Kahneman's seminal opus, Thinking, Fast and Slow, is also instrumental.Randorama wrote:How to explain that shutdown is necessary to the democratic masses? I hope that you agree that a drab "because science tells us it is the right approach" may not be a viable solution when people are not used to drastic measures (I'd love it, mind you! Power to the scientists, but only from human sciences of course).
Naturally, it goes both ways; science is never "neutral" - cannot be, as nothing ever can. Research is nudged by intentions which as such are never apolitical (at the very least in the sense that a decision for something always involves a decision against something else, due to the trusim that you cannot have everything at the same time); one even has to note that caring for science is such a decision in itself.
It's no different for democracy, the original idea of which is that citizens decide (directly or indirectly), not numbers. These decisions ideally are informed by science, but never dictated by it (itself a political decision, I don't feel like going down the rabbit hole here to fathom whether democracy without science is possible or desirable). Otherwise terms like technocracy, scientocracy, or scientism, even, might be a more fit characterization of the circumstances. Just as the cat vanishes if one were to try to describe it by enumerating its constituent molecules, or one would not be able to make out musicians by examining the grooves and bumps of a phonograph record, there is more to the world than measurement and numbers, and I think it would be foolish to believe that science could ever end all arguing - not just due to lack of information or ignorance, this addendum is important.
After this, I believe I owe you a first, amateurish approximation on the ideal way one would explain drastic measures to the masses, if necessary due to a situation like the current one (even if it's unfamiliar), in some real-world, democratically governed country: collectedly, empathically, well-informedly and transparently. From there, build on your educational system, or more generally, the legacy of the Age of Reason. Reassess, and if this turns out not being enough, reserve yourself the right to employ compulsory measures, as an utilitarian move to protect others.
But his old outfit inspired a lot of good musicians, while all these jerkoffs produce is untrammelled dogshit. In a way this is the best thing they've collectively ever done. 
