Thanks, Alan. Those half-wits (to give them some benefit of the doubt) know little or nothing about how population growth is being trimmed back, mainly through (this would utterly baffle them) better education for women in developing countries. That reference

http://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth

goes into that in detail, but they won't be bothered to read any of it.

Of course, that decline in mortality rates, which means people are living longer, has a finite limit: once we all start living to 100 or 120, maybe that will be it, and populations generally will start to decline everywhere.

And because more or less everybody will be healthier, governments will push up retirement ages to seventy, seventy five and eighty. Then people will have forty years of do-nothing retirement to endure.

Meanwhile, an extra generation of 'young people' will have to contemplate far more working years, supporting far more old farts like me. Couldn't happen to nicer people :)

Anyway, world population could reach a limit by about 2100, and then decline, with growing acceleration. I'm not sure I would want to be around in a century or two, in a world of Old Farts.

Cheers,

Joe

Here's my estimation of Australian deaths if there is no vaccine.

Presuming an episodic lockdown approach of weeks to months at a time, in which there will be several waves of death over a long time period without quarantine of the vulnerable (or likelihood of economic activity returning much between episodes, I add), and, presuming herd immunity is reached at 80% population infection:

25000000 x 80/100 x 0.37 (or justify your own number here)/100 = 74,000

Under the Swedish model, assume ~ 0.2% mortality rate (approximation based on weighted WHO estimates for mortality in younger demographics, cf 0.37% without isolating the vulnerable, based on a German study):

25000000 x 80/100 x 0.20 (or justify your own number here)/100 = 40,000

Now, you might assert, Australia could successfully isolate the vulnerable over the entire stretch of several waves of infection until herd immunity is reached long-term, or that the Australian model is smarter because a vaccine will come.

Discuss.

Luciferase,
The original SARS outbreak was stopped not by heard immunity, but by quarantining those affected.
We should do likewise this time.

It's harder than before because this time the virus is transmissible before symptoms appear. So a lot more testing needs to be done. Australia's testing rate may be among the best in the world, but in absolute terms it's pathetic. If we want to wipe out COVID19, the testing rate should be a thousand times higher!

Luciferase,

I don't disagree with the formulae but the numbers are iffy.

First, we need to realise that for all intents and purposes we really haven't got the faintest idea what the infection mortality rate is. We think we have a pretty good idea of the numbers of fatalities but even that is under a cloud.

But as to the numbers of actual infections we really don't know much, since the current testing regime is nowhere near comprehensive and is skewed toward finding those sickened by the virus and therefore more likely to die. In the example of the Diamond Princess half of those infected were asymptomatic and, had they been in the general community rather than in a closed environment, would likely not have been tested.

What we also know with some certainty is that the fatality rate differs by age. For all intents and purposes, the fatality rate for those under 40 is zero and for those under 50 barely detectable. For those older than that, the rate increases but is much more prevalent among those with pre-existing conditions.

So if/when we open the society, it will be a case of letting those least at risk get exposed and develop immunity. Those most at risk will remain sequestered. Its not going to be easy and surely many will fall through the cracks and not survive.

But the numbers will not be as high as you calculations suggest.

For goodness sake you children... you are a disgrace to the human mind and its power.

1. sure people will die, more die from drugs, drink, smoking, stupid Extreme sports and in cars every year than will die from this.
2. Apart from China and Who, governments have tried to balance the needs of human suffering with the economy that supports our first world luxurious life
3. People have been given a breathing space where for one weird limbo, they can stop, look around and even be sociable, as opposed to head down bum up making money and being promoted in the rat race we call modern life.
4.This is a time to re-assess, and rebuild and then move on positively.

Stop winging!, tomorrow a double-decker bus, or worst stage 4 cancer might hit you!

Ask yourselves WHAT makes a good society and what are its VALUES... its certainly not China or WHO.. its certainly not Wall Street or stock markets... its commonsense, fairness, equal opportunity and basic health, water, sanitation and power... after that, human nature will take over and its up to individuals to steer it in the most balanced direction.

Author asks 'Now comes a question often asked in university philosophy tutorials. How much is a human life worth? Is it a million dollars for a person in their teens or much less for a person with a chronic illness in their 70s or 80s?'

nothing if you believe in killing the unborn.