_:nd950a161828e4c61ada4797548c573daxb4
<http://schema.org/text>
"@ paul314 - The problem with that theory is that we actually have very little idea what the real fatality rate is given that we have no idea at all just how many people have actually had C-19 due to the truly epicly pathetic global lack of testing (except S Korea and maybe Germany). If we knew reasonably accurately how any people had caught C-19 then the true 'fatality rate' could be 1/10th of what we understand it to be currently.  In time, once more antibody test kts are available, we might be able to fill in the blanks a bit.\r\n\r\nHad we not had MERS and SARS in the recent past I could forgive all our governemnts for failing to be prepared.  As it is, we had them both but appear to have completely missed 2 opportunities to make ourselves ready for the inevitable next event.  All that would be needed to prevent a repeat of the world going into 95% uncessary lockdown is a huge stash of swab kits (that cost pennies and don't 'go off') and a contingency plan to prepurpose large numbers of commercial and private laboratories, nationally, to process the tests.  Then we can test (and re-test) for the infected (and perhaps more importantly, the infectious) as well as for those who have had C-19 and are no longer infectious and therefore safe to let out.  \r\n\r\nI could even see an argument for deliberately infecting some sections of the population (voluntarily, of course!) in a very controlled way, to help curb the uncontrolled spread of the disease... a bit like a fire-break.  I *do hope* that lessons will be learned from this fiasco - the next one could be 100 times more contagious/dangerous."
<https://newatlas.com/health-wellbeing/coronavirus-social-distancing-how-long-what-next/>