I wholeheartedly agree that different approaches need to be considered. No need to resort to monosyllabic condescension. I am not of the addled brain type that just regurgitates "Trump getting people killed" without original thought. (Please do not infer that I am a Trumpster, either...far from it). I'm not sure what "conclusion" I advanced that you are not agreeing with.I may have misunderstood, and, if so, I apologize, but it seemed to me that he was suggesting through his post that the current methodology was way over the top for the minimal death toll attributable to this virus given the age and preexisting medical conditions (and, perhaps, age) of most of the victims. Sometimes some of us are able to reasonably infer a message (or most of it) without it being spelled out in monosyllables. What you refer to as a "statistic" happens to be a full page of several statistics from which many suggestions as to the need for a different system would be reasonably inferred.
No offense to your personal view or interpretation, but I do not agree with your conclusion.
Back to the death counts - The novel coronavirus is a very serious bug, no doubt. It's nasty, it's dangerous, and it's incredibly contagious.
I think a reasonable person could look at the data showing 98% of the deaths have had a serious co-morbidity and wonder whether we should consider an approach to isolation/suppression/mitigation that is more focused on those most at-risk, plus health care workers and first responders. They are the main vectors. I don't believe those that point out these statistics are saying their deaths shouldn't count as "valid" or that they shouldn't be treated just because they were already in a high risk category.
As an aside - It is, however, ludicrous that if an autopsy generates a positive COVID-19 test, it is listed in the Coronavirus death count, no matter the cause of death. Drowned? Car accident? Fell down the stairs? SIDS? Stage 4 leukemia? Just being 90 and it's your time? Yep, they all count. That's another discussion, though.
We are well past the 15 days to stop the spread, with widespread social distancing and we're not even close to R=1, much less R=0. Fauci was on TV this morning saying that even if we get this thing "under control" (whatever that means), it's likely going to come back in the fall. He's admitting that the current "system" is not succeeding at getting us close to the goal. He doesn't want the nation to "get back to work" until new cases are effectively zero, and there is no way to completely eliminate transmission until a large enough percentage of the population has antibodies, either through infection and recovery, or vaccination.
We are 18 months away from a vaccine (optimistically). How many effective vaccines have we ever come up with for a coronavirus?
I fear that the economic and societal damage of an 18-month nationwide shutdown - which is the only way the current strategy "works" - will be permanent and cause many more deaths than the virus itself.
Last edited: