I've updated my thread on the 40-70% statement I made to and . Tl;dr I'd now say likely 40-70% of adults (kids uncertain) unless very effective and long-lasting (thus burdensome) control measures can be sustained.
Time to re up this thread. 40% times 1-2 percent is not the right calculation. Less bad than that. Here is why we don’t know how much less bad.
3. On the population risk of transmission (my 40-70% comment in context): (updated 25 February) 4. On modeling the epidemic: basic principles (with Rebecca Kahn) 5. On countermeasures: .
À partir du 14 février, l’épidémiologiste affirme que : « l’épidémie maîtrisable tourne à la pandémie ». (retranscrit via dans un article publié le 25 février par )
which infected more people. E.g. 1968 flu was able to infect _at least_ 40%: On the upper side of the spectrum we have chickenpox, which presumably infected 95% of population before vaccine. Also there's quite a lot of difference between 5% and 30%.
Many don't make clear whether they make all-things-considered predictions, or warnings about what will happen if effective action isn't taken. Cf. Marc Lipsitch: "Summary: Should have said 40-70% of adults in a situation without effective controls."