Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It doesn't work like that. There is no scenario in which the risk is exclusively COVID deaths.
The risk is - and always has been - the weight of COVID on the health care system. Dead people do not need health care. Just as you chose zero for your question, I'll go the other way.
How many infections a day do you think we can tolerate before every hospital bed in the USA is full, and as a result, many other folks die, from gunshots, car wrecks, bee stings, whatever...? It's a big number, but it's not infinity. So we are negotiating about a number between "not zero" and "not infinity" and that leaves a LOT of room for negotiation.
Here's my question: If this is such a "scam" - then why has Donald Trump not simply recommended that no COVID restrictions be implemented, anywhere?
Infections don’t always result in symptoms. Vast majority of people are asymptomatic
Hardly paranoid, and absolutely not destroyed. I still have plenty of things to keep busy, writing a novel and making costumes for a new movie to be shot in the Spring (covid permitting) and there are a lot of fish left that I haven't caught even once, yet. I simply choose to pay attention to what science tells us about the pandemic, and structure my life accordingly. One day there will be a vaccine, and all of the other stuff will still be waiting there at that time.
As I previously stated, please conduct your life as you see fit. Just don't pretend covid is a hoax. I have six dead friends to prove it.
You realize a vaccine doesn’t eliminate a virus?
So should mask wearing and other restrictions be permanent if the goal is to have no infections and deaths?
How many Covid deaths are you willing to risk by ending the lockdowns, and reopening the economy?
If the answer is "zero", then you have set an impossible standard. To know that there is zero risk requires omniscience that extends infinitely out into the future. Human beings do not have omniscience, and thus, by your standard, you will never support reopening the economy. Are you willing to admit this?
If the answer is something higher than zero, then you agree with me. You are willing to risk Covid deaths by reopening the economy. How many deaths would you consider to be acceptable losses? What would the survival rate have to be?
Trick question, it's not a risk.
Survival Rates by Age Group
0-19=99.997%
20-49=99.98%
50-69=99.5%
70+=94.6%
Keep in mind those numbers are only for those who get infected. The overall survival rate for the population is higher. AND the numbers are higher since we know for a fact the death rate is artificially high. Dying of covid vs dying with covid.
Risk is a part of life. I could die tomorrow driving to work or just crossing the street in front of my house. I could die of a sudden heart attack while staying at home.
Covid-19 is worse than the flu. That much is obvious. There is no vaccine for it. But from what we do know, the vast majority of people who catch it will have something like a mild cold and and be just fine thereafter. Many won't even get sick at all. But similarly with every other seasonal illness, Covid-19 can get you seriously sick sometimes.
So do you want to risk going out in public and possibly catching Covid-19? I think that should be each individual's decision. Personally, I'm at high risk because I have three comorbidities, so I choose to be more cautious. But if you're relatively young, do you need to fear for your life? Probably not. If you choose to go back out into the world, then more power to you. If a store wants to set rules to lower risk, they are welcome to do so and people should respect their rules. If a store sets no rules at all, that too is completely up to them.
Covid-19 cases are many. The death rate is much lower today than it was in March and April, and it's continuing to drop rapidly. Odds are, most of us will catch it eventually. It's just too widespread and too contagious. Whatever fraction of us that will die are probably still going to die. We don't even know if all of crazy lock-downs have helped us very much. States that locked down and states that didn't haven't seen much difference.
Risk is a part of life. I could die tomorrow driving to work or just crossing the street in front of my house. I could die of a sudden heart attack while staying at home.
Covid-19 is worse than the flu. That much is obvious. There is no vaccine for it. But from what we do know, the vast majority of people who catch it will have something like a mild cold and and be just fine thereafter. Many won't even get sick at all. But similarly with every other seasonal illness, Covid-19 can get you seriously sick sometimes.
So do you want to risk going out in public and possibly catching Covid-19? I think that should be each individual's decision. Personally, I'm at high risk because I have three comorbidities, so I choose to be more cautious. But if you're relatively young, do you need to fear for your life? Probably not. If you choose to go back out into the world, then more power to you. If a store wants to set rules to lower risk, they are welcome to do so and people should respect their rules. If a store sets no rules at all, that too is completely up to them.
Covid-19 cases are many. The death rate is much lower today than it was in March and April, and it's continuing to drop rapidly. Odds are, most of us will catch it eventually. It's just too widespread and too contagious. Whatever fraction of us that will die are probably still going to die. We don't even know if all of crazy lock-downs have helped us very much. States that locked down and states that didn't haven't seen much difference.
The states that did early and strict lockdowns had high death rates. New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New Jersey. New York may be the worst in the world. Argentina did early and strict lockdowns and they have horrible numbers also. New York and Argentina are probably the 2 worst.
States with no lockdowns had low rates. Utah, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, North and South Dakota.
It's mainly about the elderly and nursing homes. Too many don't get that. Not saying you don't.
The states that did early and strict lockdowns had high death rates. New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New Jersey. New York may be the worst in the world. Argentina did early and strict lockdowns and they have horrible numbers also. New York and Argentina are probably the 2 worst.
States with no lockdowns had low rates. Utah, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, North and South Dakota.
It's mainly about the elderly and nursing homes. Too many don't get that. Not saying you don't.
Otherwise (stay safe)
I would ask - where are these old age homes overseas ?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
(stay safe)
