Coronavirus: good news and bad news

Here are two useful articles on the coronavirus:

1. "9 charts that explain the coronavirus pandemic"
2. "Coronavirus: Why You Must Act Now"

Bad news

So bad news first:

1. Epidemiologists are predicting a best-case scenario for the coronavirus would be around 0.5% fatality rate, while a worst-case scenario would be around a 3%-5% fatality rate. (I'm no epidemiologist, but from reading what they say it sounds to me that case fatality rates are based on those who develop symptoms.)

   For comparison, the seasonal flu fatality rate is 0.1%, while the Spanish flu fatality rate was 3%-5%.

   Now, in a population of 330 million people, a 0.5% fatality rate is 1.65 million deaths, while a 5% fatality rate would be 16.5 million deaths.

   In short, if the epidemiologists are to be believed: even on a best-case scenario, we're still looking at 1.65 million dead.

   (Of course, all this is based on certain mathematical or statistical assumptions, which could be debatable.)

2. Many physicians, virologists, and other experts believe this strain of the coronavirus could be a permanent fixture in life (e.g. here). Like the seasonal flu. But obviously worse.

Good news

That's the bad news. Some good news. Or at least hopeful news:

1. Mitigation measures (e.g. hand-washing, social distancing) could slow and dampen the virus' impact. If this happens on a widespread scale, then it could result in significantly less deaths than the experts are predicting. Hence, if we hope to prove the experts wrong, then people should enact reasonable mitigation measures.
2. Some (not all) experts think the summer months could slow the coronavirus. If so, then the summer months would prove a backstop for the coronavirus' transmission and spread. However, that's still debatable. We won't really know until summer comes. And it wouldn't apply to the southern hemisphere where it would be winter.
3. A vaccine for the general public is a year off (minimum), but the majority of experts seem quite confident that there will be a successful vaccine against the coronavirus.
4. Whatever happens, people can use all the knowledge and experience gained in this coronavirus pandemic to avert future pandemics. That may be one reason why nations like South Korea and Hong Kong have evidently been dealing with the coronavirus better than other nations like Italy: they've had to deal with national epidemics in their recent past.

   In any case, a possible way forward is what Michael Osterholm argues in his book Deadliest Enemy: Our War Against Killer Germs. Specifically the last chapter "Battle Plan for Survival". Here's an excerpt, and keep in mind the book was published in 2017, well before our pandemic:

   To review, our greatest threats are:

   1. Pathogens of pandemic potential, which essentially means influenza and the downstream effects of antimicrobial resistance.

   2. Pathogens of critical regional importance, which include Ebola, coronaviruses like SARS and MERS, other viruses such as Lassa and Nipah, and Aedes-transmitted diseases such as dengue, yellow fever, and Zika.

   3. Bioterrorism and dual-use research of concern (DURC), and gain-of-function research of concern (GOFRC).

   4. Endemic diseases that continue to have a major impact on the world’s health, particularly among emerging nations, including malaria, tuberculosis, AIDS, viral hepatitis, childhood diarrheal diseases, and bacterial pneumonia.

   Priority 1: Create a Manhattan Project–like program to secure a game-changing influenza vaccine and vaccinate the world.

   By the way, Osterholm was recently on Joe Rogan. Thanks to Coram Deo for pointing that out to me.