They won't, they don't, and you have no basis for making that claim.
All the links in my original post are the basis of my claim - the WHO finding in China is very plausible and says exactly what I say - so saying I have "no basis" is clearly misrepresenting my above post.
I believe I'm characterizing your claim and their links as well as I can while vehemently disagreeing. As far as I can tell, you cite a survey finding many asymptomatic cases and think that proves things will stay that way but fail to consider the properties of a growing infected group. I'm entirely hostile to your position but I know only substantial arguments can help here.
My main goal is to make clear the urgency of this situation. There's a debate about whether the virus needs to be actively suppressed and I want to make it clear that this is indeed necessary. Basically, not seeing the American Health Care system collapse and hundreds of thousands of people die is my motivate. For that, we have to realize how many people will be coming in (though that's visible in Italy).
You talk of "engaging with the facts" but you don't present either facts or arguments in this post - plus alleging motives, etc.
Edit: Looking further at your link, you're describing the (important testing approach in the village of Vo). You can say "as 10%" were symptomatic but this is in the context of the virus being spread by them, again, not in the context of the people not getting sick later. There's really no reference to exactly what percentage of people go seriously sick.
The Imperial College study, which seems well-received, and which caused the UK government to change strategy, estimates a hospitalisation rate of 4.4%.
It’s not ok to deliberately over-estimate numbers in order to achieve this goal. That was my original point at the top of this thread.
I have given the reasons that I believe 1/5 is in no way overestimate. I don't have any to think you are arguing in bad faith yourself, simply that you're mistaken on a very important point. However, you are resorting imputing bad faith on my part simply through your disagreement with my argument. That's a pretty bad way to argue and I think indicates a poor approach to this critical question.
All the links in my original post are the basis of my claim - the WHO finding in China is very plausible and says exactly what I say - so saying I have "no basis" is clearly misrepresenting my above post.
I believe I'm characterizing your claim and their links as well as I can while vehemently disagreeing. As far as I can tell, you cite a survey finding many asymptomatic cases and think that proves things will stay that way but fail to consider the properties of a growing infected group. I'm entirely hostile to your position but I know only substantial arguments can help here.
My main goal is to make clear the urgency of this situation. There's a debate about whether the virus needs to be actively suppressed and I want to make it clear that this is indeed necessary. Basically, not seeing the American Health Care system collapse and hundreds of thousands of people die is my motivate. For that, we have to realize how many people will be coming in (though that's visible in Italy).
You talk of "engaging with the facts" but you don't present either facts or arguments in this post - plus alleging motives, etc.
Edit: Looking further at your link, you're describing the (important testing approach in the village of Vo). You can say "as 10%" were symptomatic but this is in the context of the virus being spread by them, again, not in the context of the people not getting sick later. There's really no reference to exactly what percentage of people go seriously sick.