I was discussing wearing masks, not closing down the world.
Besides, I keep on reading reports about people getting re-infected and immunity not being so certain.

Re-infected and sick or just testing positive a second time? Big difference!

Who knows what’s really going on, but this guy tested positive again two months after contracting covid. Some up to 70 days.
One thing is for certain: this disease is something else..


.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-china-patients-ins-idUSKCN2240HI

This disease is something else alright... VERY contagious, not very deadly, but doing a darn good job of destroying the global economy.

Just sit in the sun and shoot some disinfectant and you will be cured!

Disclaimer: I don't know the answer to this question.

Do you think the mortality rate might be higher if stay-at-home orders and social distancing guidelines were not in place, due to the inevitable additional burden on already stretched healthcare services?

STP

Actually, the mortality rate (as I understand it) is how deadly the virus is. All the evidence I have seen is that it is less than 1%, perhaps significantly, but not as low as the flu at 0.1%. Antibody testing is revealing MUCH higher levels of infection than the official tallies, which makes the denominator much bigger while leaving the numerator (deaths) constant.

Certainly, the total deaths would be higher, but not the mortality (death rate), if preventative measures were not in place. In fact, one could argue that the preventative measures keep the denominator smaller than it would otherwise be (herd immunity?), but perhaps also the numerator as well, especially if (as you alluded to) the medical systems were to become overwhelmed. The parallel being that most diseases are more deadly in third world countries where sanitation and health care systems are less prevalent and advanced.

I’m no epidemiologist, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, courtesy of Cathay Pacific!

To selectively quote, you're right, I should have said total deaths. Arguably, even though antibody testing might be revealing higher numbers of infections, surely an unknown is the number of deaths that might have been prevented by potential asymptomatic spread due to the measures in place? I'm not an epidemiologist either.

Hope you didn't contract anything in the Holiday Inn!

STP

Yes, and the questions now are... how many will die from the global depression the world now has? And how deadly will second and possibly third waves be due to less herd immunity? I’m not saying we should have let the virus spread, but it seems we are overcooking the goose, possibly for political reasons, and now have much more public debt AND a global depression. Thank you China!

Indeed, thank you China!

I guess we're all paying for it now, for our over reliance on cheap plastic crap, and cheap labour from China.

Now we are paying the price. It should have never been allowed to happen in the first place.

All down to greed and profit, etc etc.

The best we can hope for is that this is the death knell for China's expansion and influence. We all need to amputate the bully and shut them out of the global playground. (granted, not great for CX's future if China is ostracised)...

And to answer the question regarding how many people will die? IMHO - the more the better. Let's get the population down to a manageable level.

Darwinism at its finest, especially when people in Trump's America are quite literally drinking the disinfectant/kool aid. Good! Keep it up.