Coronavirus: Let's Move On
Coronavirus: is it time to move on?
In recent weeks, it seems there has been a disturbing trend: an effort to play up coronavirus danger in order to score political points.
The narrative is a bit like this: "We can all point to the government's failings. After all, x."
The story is the same in the United States as it is in Israel (where I live). The run-of-the-mill people aren't good enough. They're lax. They aren't doing what is obviously right. The leadership isn't smart enough. We need to crack down more (or if the leadership is cracking down more, then we need to crack down less).
Whatever the government is doing is bad - so long as the government isn't in line with the staff at your newspaper of record.
The problem was that the metric for failure keeps changing. It was deaths, then serious cases, then positive tests, then positive test rates. It seems to be shifting ever further away from the core concerns: mortality and morbidity. And as the cries of outrage grew louder, the choke-hold on our economies grew stronger.
To borrow a phrase, it is a choke-hold that threatens the oppressed people of the world. In the developing world: food prices have skyrocketed, starvation has shot up and remittances have nearly vanished. Huge numbers will likely die (far more than will be killed by the coronavirus) by the economic bludgeon unintentionally wielded against the global poor.
As we are all aware, the cries of outrage have only grown louder in recent weeks. New data keeps coming in showing a massive rise in cases. That rise might be a simple result of additional testing. But even if it reflects a real rise in caseload, it seems the danger is continually receding.
One simple chart tells the story:
As you can see: in the 'first wave', deaths closely followed new cases. Nothing of the sort is happening now. It could be masks reducing virus load, a natural weakening in the virus, increased human immunity, or the organic discovery of improved treatment protocols.
Whatever the reasons, the above data should result in a change in policy.
If the rise in cases is simply a reflection of increased testing or reduced viral load due to masks, then there is no need to reimpose restrictions. What we have is working - death rates are falling. We should maintain the present course.
However, if the reduction in death rates is, a result of improved treatment, increased immunity, or a weakened virus then we should change course.
In fact, given that the virus is so far beyond the possibility of contract tracing, we should give up on suppression. Instead, we should:
- Hire large numbers of people to support an intense period of elder isolation (for those elders wishing to be isolated). 0.4% of Americans are in nursing homes, but they account for 40% of coronavirus deaths. They are at 100X of the risk. Our remaining PPP loan balance can provide $100,000 per person to provide protection for nursing home residents.
- Open the economy and allow the virus to rush through younger populations. We can use masks to limit viral load, but we should encourage exposure.
Death rates will increase (as will morbidity due to coronavirus' long-term effects). However, the indirect death rate (e.g. development world starvation, suicide, ill-health associated with unemployment, boredom-fueled murder) will fall and quite possibly millions of lives will be saved.
We must remember that economies also suffer from morbidity. Every month we extend our economic limp, we multiply the long-term effects of the virus. And every month we extend our economic limp, more lives in the developing world will be threatened by loss of resources and employment. As I detailed months ago in my video (Stop the Insanity) these deaths are very real.
Economics, though, are only the first-order impact of our virus shutdowns. We're already seeing the arrival of second-order impacts: Riots fueled by mass unemployment (even if collecting a paycheck), Chinese Communist Party aggression in Hong Kong and India (taking advantage of the moment), and the loss of industrial capacity in aerospace and energy. We can't predict what will come next.
There are concerns that total immunity will only last for a limited time. This only increases the need to open up our economies. A rapid onset of mass immunity will prevent the virus from spreading by presenting a limited variety of targets in any population. Put another way: if 25/30 people have recently had the virus, a new ill person will be hard-pressed to spread it before their own case is no longer contagious. However, if 25 people have had it, but only 5 recently, there is no benefit to be had.
P.S. Here are other countries:
Here's what I don't understand, in the beginning we thought people could be asymptomatic for up to 2 weeks. Then you would get sick. So we did things like tell people to just self quarantine for 2 weeks and if you felt fine, then you were fine to rejoin society. Only now we know most people are asymptomatic the entire time. So why don't we actually test these people instead of just telling them to self quarantine if exposed? They could easily be infected after the 2 weeks and not know it, and infect countless others.
From the CDC:
Available data indicate that persons with mild to moderate COVID-19 remain infectious no longer than 10 days after symptom onset. Persons with more severe to critical illness or severe immunocompromise likely remain infectious no longer than 20 days after symptom onset.
Is that a definitive fact? Or just a guess? Seems like the CDC and other medical professionals have kind of gone back and forth over what's what.
E.g. How they flipflopped on mask wearing. Or how the # of days that the virus can survive on objects keeps changing. It's frustrating. I wish there was a unified message. But there's so much conflicting info out there. And all the politicians disagreeing with each other doesn't help either.
I don't think there are any definitive facts. Masks are actually really complex to model and heavily dependent on a load of factors (how the virus travels, how it is expelled, how it enters the target, environmental factors etc...). Likewise the reality/meaningfulness of the virus surviving on objects (sunlight, media in the air, how it gets into your system etc...)
Relatively speaking, I think the period of infectivity is simpler. You can test people's breath/coughs and see if there is any active virus in it. This is a very standard question. Few people have tried to figure out how effective masks are against flu/chickenpox etc... or how well they survive on surfaces - but when one is no longer contagious is generally pretty understood.
All that said, it is the scientific process. You try to move towards truth, without necessarily getting there. The greatest risk I see is political truth driving scientific truth (e.g. Trump is wrong/right so this scientific theory is wrong/right). We are seeing an enormous amount of that going on and it is really not productive.
Because 98% are no longer infectious after 11 days. You can be infected, but unable to spread.
Mind blown! You can be physically sick but no longer contagious? This is news to me and the first good answer I've heard to this question.
It happens with lots of sicknesses.
Take chickenpox:
"A person with chickenpox is contagious beginning 1 to 2 days before rash onset until all the chickenpox lesions have crusted (scabbed)"
Mumps:
"The infectious period is considered from 2 days before to 5 days after parotitis onset" (which can last for 10 days)
I'm no doctor, but I think most respiratory diseases are infectious while you are coughing - that is how they are designed to spread. But a virus that causes an immune overresponse (for example) might cause coughing even after the virus itself is no longer capable of replicating.
Why schools must remain closed:
www.newsweek.com/teacher-dies-coronavirus-after-warning-that-parents-are-violating-isolation-sending-kids-school-1518882
One thing I'm confused about - I keep saying the numbers of total infections world wide increasing and are currently at 14 million. But Iran just said they have 25 million people infected. So how can the world infections be only at 14 million?
Serological (statistical studies) vs. individually verified cases. There are many many cases that are never diagnosed and only calculated via population studies.
@[DRM](user:130312), you keep talking only about the deaths, but don't forget all those who recover, but never fully. According to this article, it's 20% of all infections. With millions getting #Covid19, that will be a strain on our health system for years to come, not to mention personally very difficult for those impacted:
edition.cnn.com/.../index.html
Fake news!!!
Unfortunately, saying "fake news" for every article that disagrees with you is simply a copout and right out of Trump's playbook. It doesn't lead to intellectual debate or the arguing of merits, it just shuts the conversation down. It's the go to response when a person does not have a valid, facts based response.
I love a good debate!!! But debating Mainstream Media’s “news” is a foolish waste of time. Step back and look at it and you'll see the obvious attempt to make the current administration look bad, while trying to make the anarchists look like heroes. I served my country, not for morons to burn the flag or tear down what American's built since the founding of this greatest of all nations. I fought against the armies of our enemies, those who would cut your throat and the throats of our women after they raped them, leaving nothing but a wasteland and pools of blood behind. Think this isn't real? See what happens as the Marxists fight for power. I've spent most of the past 6 years in the former Soviet Union, observing, studying and learning all about the murderous, dastardly, wicked, evil, iniquitous, heinous, villainous, diabolic, fiendish, vicious, barbarous, cruel, black, dark, rotten, nefarious, vile, foul, monstrous, shocking, outrageous, atrocious, abominable, reprehensible, despicable, execrable, corrupt, degenerate, reprobate, sordid, depraved, dissolute, base, mean, low, unscrupulous, unprincipled, malfeasant, egregious and flagitious, to mention a few adjectives which describe Marxism. The definition you find in textbooks is a mere facade. If you truly want to see Marxism in practice, visit Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, or one of many other former Soviet countries. The remnants of Marxism will slap you in the face and the resulting shock will remain with you forever.
I doubt it is 20%. In Israel, there were 20,000 reported infections by 250,000 serologically indicated infections. In New York there were 1.7 million infection serologically speaking after the 'first wave.' Only 225,000 were diagnosed. Yes, there is significant morbidity, but not 20%.
You miss understood me Joe. Did you read the article? According to this article, 20% of people who get infected end up with some level of permanent damage to their bodies which impacts their quality of life.
Granted, it's too soon to know if none of these people will ever recover, but for some, it's been 6 months with no sign of improvement.
And I'm arguing with the 20%. How could it be 20% when we don't even know about 85% of cases except through statistical surveys?
I believe he's referring to 20% of known cases of COVID-19.
Which matters. Take New York state. It was by far the hardest hit place in the US and one of the hardest hit in the world. At the end of the 'first wave' 13.9% of the state population had been infected. Since then, infections (and deaths) have fallen massively.
New York State appears to have reached some sort of rolling immunity (immunity getting topped up by additional exposures resulting in actual herd immunity even as individual immunity lapses).
In this process 32,000 people died and something like 400,000 were diagnosed. Using the 20% morbidity number, something like 80,000 were affected with the long-term effects of the virus.
Since this 'first wave', as evidenced by the charts I posted, the US and world have actually gotten far more effective at treating cases. The cause could be a less virulent virus, wider testing catching weaker cases or better treatment. From a friend I have who works in a corona ward here people are coming in healthier and are being treated far more effectively. This would suggest that both deaths and ill effects are being moderated.
Deaths per case have fallen dramatically. If either a weaker virus or better treatment are to blame this would suggest morbidity has also fallen.
New York had a serological death rate of about 1.2% (32,000/(13.9% * 19,450,000). If current trends hold, that might fall closer to 0.25%. So the next place could suffer 1/5th the deaths and morbidity and achieve the same herd immunity.
Texas has 30 million people (1.3X New York State), so that suggests 8,320 deaths to achieve the same result.
That is, of course, a terrible result. It is also 0.03% of the population. It would be the 7th leading cause of death - right behind Alzheimers.
If we could stop the economy to stop Alzheimers would we? What if the economic shock damaged our ability to treat heart disease, cancer, stroke... I know in Melbourne (Oz) you can't be treated by a physio after a stroke, because they won't see you in person. Would you decide to do that?
And what if all your open-ended efforts are really for naught - because even if you eradicate the virus in Texas it will come across the Mexican border from places that lack the depth of resources we have - places that can't shut down?
At what point do you say: this is awful, we have no good choices, but our choices are a whole lot better than New York's were and we can afford to move on?
This is meant as a serious question. There are no obvious answers, but the debate is certainly worth having.
Clarifying this - would we stop the economy to stop Alzheimers *for one year*.
Very interesting comment thread, thanks.
I’m currently in Austria, a modern European country with a population of 9 million. No one is wearing a mask and they haven’t for weeks. Only 700 deaths have resulted from C-19.
Surprising. I would have thought it would be much higher. But it's all relative. Almost 1k dead is still a major loss. Imagine if there was a terrorist attack with that many dead. It would be huge news. Remember 9/11?
56 million human beings die every year. This is a big number. But, there's very little we can do about it. However, 700 deaths or 1,000 as you say, is not a big number when you put it into perspective. Any number can look bad, when it's taken out of perspective. Put the number of people who have and will die from C-19 into perspective and it's easy to see that destroying the economy, the freedom and the lives of 50 million Americans is an insane act and abuse of power. Compare the C-19 deaths of 140,000 to date in the USA (and the death rate has fallen drastically since this started) to the annual average deaths of 2.8 million and you can easily see the insanity. We're seeing 5% of the 2020 deaths coming from C-19, just wait until the annual numbers for all deaths are counted and I'm sure we will see that the 2020 deaths are very close to the same average annual deaths, we've experienced year after year. If this proves to be the case, there is no better evidence that the actual C-19 deaths were inflated.
I think we'll see a significant rise in depths and then quite the argument about whether C-19 or the economic and social side effects of C-19 are to blame.
It's a tough situation. On the one hand, it is difficult as there are so many unknowns with the virus, but it is definitely not sustainable to have the economy shut down. Feels like a game of Russian Roulette, and I would side with opening up the economy.
Two points I'd like to make. (1) According to a report on Healthline.com, "Researchers say anywhere from 25 percent to 80 percent of people with COVID-19 are unaware they have the virus." More proof that you can't believe or trust some "doctors, scientists, professionals, etc", because who in their right mind would make a statement with such a broad range? 25% to 80%? Are you kidding me? This simply means that the "experts" don't have a clue. (2) If even 25% is the right number, and with the numbers of deaths being so small compared to those infected, how dangerous can C-19 be when so many infectees are asymptomatic?
I agree. Releasing statements like from 25% to 80% do more harm than good. It just makes us lose trust in the medical community since it's obvious they don't know what they are talking about.
My concern with all these asymptomatic people around (and even if only 25%, that's A LOT!), is that just because they are asymptomatic, doesn't mean I will be. Sure, most people will be fine, but not all. I don't want to be one of the unlucky ones.
Sorry, there’s no guarantee you won’t be unlucky.
Very true, but a total lockdown will kill us just as easily, if not more so. We could probably be fine without a lockdown if everyone just wore a mask, practiced good hygiene and avoided large gatherings. But a lot of people are sadly idiots.
Because, in absence of a lockdown, the more people who have it, the more people will catch it. And even if it doesn't kill you, for some people, it knocks you out for months, and some say they still haven't fully recovered. Also lots of talk of clots, strokes, amputations, inflammation disease, lots of crazy related stuff. It's not just about who dies. If someone is alive but in a coma, or missing all their limbs, it's not much of a life.
What’s worse dying from C-19 or dying from suicide, starvation, cancer or heart disease or some other treatable illness that wasn’t taken care of because of the lockdowns?
Speak for yourself. I plan to live a long time. No plans to starve, or kill myself. I eat right and exercise which will help with heart disease and cancer risk. I wear a mask and hopefully won't get COVID. But the only one of this list that's contagious is COVID. All the idiots running around as if there's no pandemic could easily get me killed. Stupid can be deadly.
You are stable and relatively rich. Economic collapse is indeed contagious. Social collapse can be as well.Both do kill - often those in the third-world first.
There’s no evidence that lockdowns helped. There’s lots of evidence they hurt. If lockdowns worked, why is C-19 spiking? If they worked, there should not be a spike in infections.
They aren't working because people in the US are ignoring calls to stay home. But if you look at other countries, the numbers are obvious. Lockdowns caused the numbers to drop. It's also common sense - people can't spread the disease if they are stuck at home.
But we also see from other countries, that as soon as the countries open up again, the cases do spike. So not sure what the answer is. We can't seem to win.
You are correct that there are simply too many unknowns and too many doctors can't come to a consensus. And while I get your point, I also don't think it matter. I don't care if most people are asymptomatic, or if most people recover. I care that over half a million people have died, and many say we'll be stuck like this for years. Which means many more will die. Throw in those who will die from other problems directly caused by covid (e.g. no money to buy food or medicine, we're talking about a major tragedy.
Best to get everything locked down to try to get this under control as soon as possible and eliminate the problem. Unless you are okay with those numbers.
56 million people die every year! Death is part of life. Lockdowns are going to kill more people than C-19.
Sure, but while I can't help if I die from cancer, just like I got lower my risk from death by a car accident by wearing a seat belt, I can do the same with wearing a mask, etc.
Masks are a waste of time. They don't help at all, it's a scientific fact. Plus by wearing one, you are letting governments take away your civil rights. Better to refuse to wear one and show you support our president who is trying to spread the truth and keep idiots like Dr. Fauci from spreading his fascist lies that COVID can kill people.
If anyone tells you to wear a mask. Just cough in their face and they'll run away!
Please don’t tell people to intentionally cough into someone’s face.
Why not? All these idiots who are so afraid could use a little scare. It's not like they'll get sick. And personally, I've never felt better. If the china flu is real, I don't have it. I thought we were on the same side here. End the lockdowns, reopen the economy, don't tell us what to do. It's a free country!
I agree with opening the economy, but they could very well get sick. This is a very real virus which is very dangerous (both in terms of mortality and morbitity). One doesn't strengthen the case for opening by ignoring that.
So that's a no to coughing on people then? :(
Sorry, but wearing a mask is not a guarantee you won’t catch C-19.
Mankind is not evolving, it is de-volving. How else can you explain such foolish actions in response to just one more in a long series of viruses? We learn nothing from history. And still, after all the statistics showing that this is no worse than the flu, with death rates drastically falling, with a very high percentage of asymptomatic infectoids, politicians are again unconstitutionally forcing the house arrest of innocent citizens and forced closures of legally operating businesses. When will it end? When will the people finally rise up and throw these morons out of office?
It isn't just one more virus. It is clearly far more deadly and is having a big impact on mortality. We are getting better at treating it. In Israel it is about as deadly as the flu (although morbidity is worse), the first 'wave' had about a 0.14% mortality rate. In the US, that rate was about 1.4%.
But it is *new* and so there are many many more cases. We had no boost in mortality, but the US certainly did. Put it this way, there might be 35 million with the flu. But there could be 250 million with COVID-19. Even if the death rate ends up being similar there could be many more deaths.
So I'm not suggesting what I'm suggesting because the virus isn't dangerous. The virus is very dangerous. I'm suggesting it because the alternatives are far more dangerous.
250 million with COVID? Based on what? Are you talking about the US or the world. There's only 3 some million confirmed cases. You think it's that much higher?
No, I think it could be. 70% could get it. Parts of New York are approaching those rates from some sampling done.
Do you have any valid stats to back up you claim? Could be, maybe, possibly, is all speculative bullshit!!! As of today, there have been 44.5 million tests and only 3.6 million confirmed cases in the USA. That's 8%. 8% of the USA population is 26.6 million, not 250 million.
I agree with DRM. COVID19 is a lie started by anti-Trump haters as an excuse to destroy the economy and steal the election from Trump. The deaths are all complete fabrications that include regular deaths from people dying from things like strokes and the actual flu. Which is far more dangerous than the made up China flu!
Ultra, your comment is ridiculous. How can COVID-19 be both a fictitious disease, and yet be a real disease from China? How can we both blame China for the disease, and the democrats in the US who want Trump gone? It can't be both.
@[Ultra](user:74841), that's not what @[DRM](user:130312) is saying. He's not saying the disease isn't real, he's just saying that there's a lot of conflicting info out there and that some people are over reacting and letting their fear get the better of them. You can't shut down the entire economy, or quite frankly EVERYONE will die from homelessness and starvation. We need to keep this all in perspective.
Unfortunately, there have also been too many "republican/conservative" mayors and governors, unconstitutionally closing the economies of their cities and states and putting citizens under house arrest to say that this is a conspiracy by the left, not to mention that almost every country in the world has done the same thing. I would say it is more accurately a hyped up threat that the US and World press pushed because it sold ad space to their clients and that ignorant, incompetent politicians overreacted to. Until now, this has been the greatest fiasco in human history. Who know what they will do next.
Where on earth are you seeing statistics saying that it is no worse than the flu? And we have a vaccine for the flu! It could be years before we have one for Covid. That's the scary part.
Yes, every year there are new vaccines for the flu, yet 650,000 people still die from the flu, worldwide, every year. How many fewer would die from C-19 if there were a vaccine? How many people actually died from C-19 so far in the USA? The evidence showing that the government is inflating the numbers is overwhelming. The flu kills children, teens, young adults, middle aged and the old. C-19 has killed almost no children, no teens, no young adults, no middle aged and a very small number of elderly people in comparison to the population! Also, how dangerous is a virus that has a significantly high number of asymptomatic infectees? Open your eyes! Look at the sats! Don't cave to the fake press or the corrupt government!!!
People still die from the flue because the majority of people don't bother taking it. I wonder once they do have a vaccine for COVID, how many will refuse to take it?
That's bullshit! Give me your source that shows the majority of the population don't bother to get the flu vaccine. Polls, which don't really mean anything, say that a large number of people won't take the C-19 vaccine. What does that tell you?
Hi DRM - I'm not trying to be argumentative. It's just a fact, and one that's very easy to backup. I'm sure you could have easily verified yourself with Google before jumping down my throat to attack me. Happy to debate as long as we keep it civil and respectful. All opinions are welcome here.
To answer your question, here is a CNN article stating that only 52% of Americans PLAN to get a flu shot. Obviously many never do. I for one always plan to, but have only gotten around to it once or twice in my life:
edition.cnn.com/.../index.html
Here is another article that states that only 43% of American adults get vaccinated. It did not mention children:
www.usnews.com/.../survey-43-percent-of-adults-will-not-get-flu-shot
It certainly makes sense that not enough people get it, or so many wouldn't die from it. I for one have never had it. Maybe I would have had I known it was so deadly. I always just thought it was a bad cold that kept you in bed for a day or two.
"Feelings, nothing more than feelings, feelings, wo-o-o feelings." Facts no longer matter.
Exactly my point. It sounds like the pot is calling the kettle black to me. At least I do mention facts. All I hear from you is you questioning everyone else's. For the record, I did agree with you on your arguments about how lockdowns could be even deadlier than COVID-19, but I'll never agree that COVID-19 isn't a horribly dangerous disease that's already killed over half a million people.
If the "true" deaths from C-19 exceed 1.3 million in 12 months, I'll concede that it's twice as deadly as the flu, but until it kills over 50,000,000 people (that's 50 million) it won't be the worst virus mankind has seen. Read up on the "Spanish Flu".
I have to disagree with you here DRM. Many children have died from COVID-19. Yes, they are in the minority, but what kind of parents wants to take that kind of risk? Plus a very high percentage of children with COVID develop Multisystem inflammatory syndrome which can cause long term damage.
From the CDC website: "In this preliminary description of pediatric U.S. COVID-19 cases, relatively few children with COVID-19 are hospitalized, and fewer children than adults experience fever, cough, or shortness of breath. Severe outcomes have been reported in children, including three deaths." Three (3) deaths of children is not "many" when put into perspective. I'm sure there is newer information available, but I have not been able to find it yet. However, I have seen a video on YouTube addressing the return of children to school and it explains why there is no risk for the children or their parents or grandparents and it's because children have not been found to spread the virus. The "risk" just isn't there. The flu is much more dangerous and risky to children of all ages.
So Mr. DRM, you saw a video on YouTube saying it was safe to send kids back to school, so it must be true?
Are you Michele's puppet or parrot? If so, just read my responses to her, so I don't have to repeat myself.
So Mr. DRM, you saw a video on YouTube saying it was safe to send kids back to school, so it must be true?
Why do you overlook the evidence I gave you concerning your erroneous assumption that many children have died from Covid 19? Seems the facts don’t matter to you, only your feelings which drive you down a dead end. The Youtube video was simply one more piece of the puzzle that even the "experts" haven't yet figured out. Do you "feel" that all videos on YouTube ar bogus or just the one I came across? Is there no valid evidence available on YouTube unless you "feel" it's valid?
Tell me how many children from age 0 to 18 have died from C-19 in the USA! And please give me your source. Thanks
I'm also curious as to how many kids have died from COVID. I've looked for this stat more than once and come up empty.
I was just searching for this and could not find it myself. But I did find this article which stated 5% of infections are in children. With 3.4 confirmed infections (though actual infections are likely higher) we're talking 170,000 infections. The same article said that in one study (with a small sample size), 2% died. While far from a very accurate number, that 2%, that's 3,400 worldwide. So definitely a tragedy but far from a large number. And this doesn't take into account those that survived, but are suffering from permanent damage.
Did anyone find anything different? Here was that link: www.mayoclinic.org/.../art-20484405
The death rate for children in diagnosed (not serological) cases is here. I am not worried about my 6 children: ourworldindata.org/.../...CFR-by-age-1536x1190.png
Tell me how many children from age 0 to 18 have died from C-19 in the USA! And please give me your source. Thanks
I specifically didn't say die (though I've certainly read about some who have in the news), I said that it can cause permanent damage. and Is aid I couldn't find the article but will try to look more later. I don't have kids but probably wouldn't want to put them at risk by sending them to school if I did.
I can't find it now but I recently read a report that said almost every child that was admitted to a hospital due to covid, had developed permanent lung damage. These can cause problems that may not manifest for years, but will surely negatively impact their lives and possibly end them far earlier.
The comment was deleted!
I'm not a doctor. But if I recall the issue was that there was heavy scaring on the lungs, which they said tends to be permanent. But it seems you are very quick to dismiss any information, no matter how many doctors and scientists says so, if it doesn't support Trump's narrative that COVID-19 is no big deal. Here's a crazy thought... isn't it possible that maybe, just maybe, COVID-19 IS VERY DANGEROUS?
If you are elderly, you "could" die from C-19, but most don't. You are at higher risk if you have certain pre existing conditions. But, only a small percentage of the human race has or will die from C-19. If you are a young child, a young adult, a middle aged adult or elderly, you could die from the flu. Neither virus kills massive numbers of humans. Wake up!!! It's overhyped, unlike anything in human history!!!
It's possible that butterflies may someday fly out of my butt, but I prefer to base my opinions on facts, not possibilities, and surely not feelings. And, I don't care how many doctor's or other professional's say anything about anything without facts to back up their "opinions". Why do so many people think that there's truth simply in numbers. At one time, the majority believed that the world was flat.
It seems that Joseph may have been right that more people could die from hunger induced by the pandemic, than from the pandemic itself:
edition.cnn.com/.../index.html
Every year, around 9 million people die of hunger, according to the international relief agency Mercy Corps. This was before the politicians destroyed the world economy, putting over 50 million people out of work in the USA alone. Don't put the deaths from C-19 into perspective. If you do, you'll pull your hair out from frustration and anger.
Yes, I will say this new information certainly puts things into a different perspective for me. But I do think we need to find a way to keep the economy open AND keep people safe. I think wearing masks and being socially distant should be mandatory everywhere in the US. The people who refuse to wear a mask just seem crazy to me.
Should the US Government also force everyone to wear masks during the flu season? 40,000 people died in the USA from the flu during the 2017-18 season. People die! You can't stop death. Stop the economy and many more people will die and/or suffer terribly.
Did you read about the bus driver who was beaten to death because he told some men who wanted to board the bus that they had to wear a mask? This disease has made people go crazy!
It is truly unfortunate. The unseen and indirect deaths. We are fortunate that the world went into this with massive food stocks, but having food is not the same thing as being able to get it where it needs to go.
Let me update that. It is tragic - tragic because it was avoidable if not for our laser focus on a single issue.
Loading comments, please wait...