The number is quoted by Scottish First Minister Sturgeon.
From the article:
"But she accepted that the government was preparing for a 100,000 deaths. Asked reports of the figure in the Sunday Times, Ms Sturgeon told Sky News: 'We're looking at the scientific worst case scenarios right now... these kind of figures are very much worst case scenarios.'
" Who are the experts? What scientific worst case scenarios? From where?
This is how rumors get going. It's not you - it's the DM making on leap and not doing any corroboration of her statement. None.
I don't know exactly what they are thinking, but my opinion is that the only way to get to the "worst case scenario" is to effectively allow the virus to spread without significant intervention from public health organizations. Like I have posted on several threads, the more dangerous a virus is, the more people will do to avoid it. Worst case scenarios are not going to happen because people don't actually want themselves or their loved ones to die.
By every single reference I have seen, this virus is more contagious (higher R0) than any influenza, so if left completely unchecked, it would infect as many or more than the flu. But it will not go unchecked. Our public health efforts might not be as effective as Singapore's, but they will be better than zero. Even people taking personal precautions like social distancing and hand washing will greatly slow the spread, not to mention the efforts in treatment, cancelling public gatherings, reducing travel, etc.
. It’s not you - it’s the DM
no worries. That’s why I throw the articles up on this thread - to critique when necessary, and for the scraps of data each have embedded
I was almost sure that was a typo, until I checked.
I still say it sounds fishy...