Question: How many of the COVID-19 deaths would have occurred anyway

task0778

Diamond Member
Mar 10, 2017
12,263
11,379
2,265
Texas hill country
How many would have died of the Flu or something else? If a different virus comes along next year and the years after that, are we going to keep doing what we did this time for COVID-19? I'm getting the feeling we have started to circle the drain.
 
How many would have died of the Flu or something else? If a different virus comes along next year and the years after that, are we going to keep doing what we did this time for COVID-19? I'm getting the feeling we have started to circle the drain.
Considering the flu has a mortality rate of 0.1 percent which is lower by a few orders of magnitude than Covid 19 I'm guessing considerably less.

As to your other question. A virus this contagious and this dangerous doesn't come around yearly. In fact, the last time something like this was recorded was over 100 years ago. So claiming this will now happen yearly seems not a little bit far fetched. I'm not saying it will be another 100 years before this happens again, but yearly???
 
"Considering the flu has a mortality rate of 0.1 percent which is lower by a few orders of magnitude than Covid 19 I'm guessing considerably less. "

CDC estimates that the burden of illness during the 2018–2019 season included an estimated 35.5 million people getting sick with influenza, 16.5 million people going to a health care provider for their illness, 490,600 hospitalizations, and 34,200 deaths from influenza. The number of influenza-associated illnesses that occurred last season was similar to the estimated number of influenza-associated illnesses during the 2012–2013 influenza season when an estimated 34 million people had symptomatic influenza illness.

So, how many orders of magnitude do you think the COVID-19 mortality rate will be over that of last year's influenza numbers?

Consider: the current number of COVID-I9 cases in the US stands approx 209k, with 4633 deaths. So, here's my question, asked again:
How many of those 4633 would have died this year of influenza if the COVID-19 had not materialized? Considerably less? 34,200 died from influenza last year. I'm guessing most of those 4633 would have died anyway. Which is not to belittle the COVID-19 virus, it's a serious issue but I do believe it has been blown all out of proportion.

"A virus this contagious and this dangerous doesn't come around yearly."

Influenza-related illnesses do occur every year, and a lot of people get sick and quite a few die. Consider:

Let's take a quick look at the now forgotten H1N1 pandemic that ran for about a year from April 2009 to April 2010. The similarities between the two pandemics are evident. Both were novel strains for which there were no available vaccines. Both viruses hit people over 60 the hardest. During the year that H1N1 raged, the CDC estimates that “there were 60.8 million cases (range: 43.3-89.3 million), 274,304 hospitalizations (range: 195,086-402,719), and 12,469 deaths (range: 8868-18,306).”

I do not believe we should assume the next pandemic will be in 10 years from now, or longer. Maybe this thing mutates into something new, or something else comes along a lot sooner and just as deadly. If not worse. We need to have plans already in place to deal with the next pandemic that comes down the road, it's foolish to think it'll never happen again. Don't tell me it can't happen next year, the hell it can't. How do you feel about gambling with that many lives?

We gotta do better than this, our economy is going right down the toilet and it's not going to suddenly pick right up from where it left off. The National Debt is projected to be over a trillion for FY2020, and we just added $2.2 trillion to that. That trend, my friends, is not sustainable. And as we speak, Democrats and some Republicans are working on more Emergency Relief Bills, to spend even more money that we don't have. Doesn't anybody care about the burden we will be passing on to future generations?
 
Ad agencies are forced to list the side effects of prescription medicine they advertise. Anyone notice that most of the ads warn against taking the medication if you have "existing infections"? The reason is that some (most?) popular prescription medication is designed to lower the immune system so that the biologic based medicine can work. How many millions of Americans unknowingly take prescription meds that are intended to lower their immune system? For the life of me I can't understand why a warning doesn't go out about these medications. Big Pharm lobby at work?
 
"Considering the flu has a mortality rate of 0.1 percent which is lower by a few orders of magnitude than Covid 19 I'm guessing considerably less. "

CDC estimates that the burden of illness during the 2018–2019 season included an estimated 35.5 million people getting sick with influenza, 16.5 million people going to a health care provider for their illness, 490,600 hospitalizations, and 34,200 deaths from influenza. The number of influenza-associated illnesses that occurred last season was similar to the estimated number of influenza-associated illnesses during the 2012–2013 influenza season when an estimated 34 million people had symptomatic influenza illness.

So, how many orders of magnitude do you think the COVID-19 mortality rate will be over that of last year's influenza numbers?

Consider: the current number of COVID-I9 cases in the US stands approx 209k, with 4633 deaths. So, here's my question, asked again:
How many of those 4633 would have died this year of influenza if the COVID-19 had not materialized? Considerably less? 34,200 died from influenza last year. I'm guessing most of those 4633 would have died anyway. Which is not to belittle the COVID-19 virus, it's a serious issue but I do believe it has been blown all out of proportion.

"A virus this contagious and this dangerous doesn't come around yearly."

Influenza-related illnesses do occur every year, and a lot of people get sick and quite a few die. Consider:

Let's take a quick look at the now forgotten H1N1 pandemic that ran for about a year from April 2009 to April 2010. The similarities between the two pandemics are evident. Both were novel strains for which there were no available vaccines. Both viruses hit people over 60 the hardest. During the year that H1N1 raged, the CDC estimates that “there were 60.8 million cases (range: 43.3-89.3 million), 274,304 hospitalizations (range: 195,086-402,719), and 12,469 deaths (range: 8868-18,306).”

I do not believe we should assume the next pandemic will be in 10 years from now, or longer. Maybe this thing mutates into something new, or something else comes along a lot sooner and just as deadly. If not worse. We need to have plans already in place to deal with the next pandemic that comes down the road, it's foolish to think it'll never happen again. Don't tell me it can't happen next year, the hell it can't. How do you feel about gambling with that many lives?

We gotta do better than this, our economy is going right down the toilet and it's not going to suddenly pick right up from where it left off. The National Debt is projected to be over a trillion for FY2020, and we just added $2.2 trillion to that. That trend, my friends, is not sustainable. And as we speak, Democrats and some Republicans are working on more Emergency Relief Bills, to spend even more money that we don't have. Doesn't anybody care about the burden we will be passing on to future generations?
Ok so there's more than a few things to respond too so I'll try to do it point by point.

-Trying to compare absolute numbers of the flu without a lockdown to the numbers of a more deadly disease with a lockdown is foolish. If 209k people catch the flu at a mortality rate of 0.1, 209 die not 4633 that's a statistical fact.

-Trying to compare Covid 19 to H1N1 of 2009 is also foolish. That virus had an even lower mortality rate than common flu.

It seems to me that all of a sudden people have all forgotten how to do simple math when they discuss this virus.

-As to be better prepared. Sure, I agree. The possibility of a very deadly global pandemic is real. So by all means make sure that there is a strategic reserve of medical equipment and enough funding to sustain ample research in infectious diseases.

-This brings me to your last point. What do you think doing those things will do to mitigate the economical damage? This is a virus. The only effective method to prevent a virus from spreading is social distancing.No amount of funding or strategic reserve is going to change that simple fact. Until a virus... any virus has a vaccine effectively treating it remains a huge challenge and sadly making a vaccine is time-consuming. That leaves social distancing and it's economical damage the only effective tool in combatting a highly virulent, highly deadly, virus.
 
The Imperial College in London (one of the most prestigious institutions in the world) initially suggested the best approach was to allow herd immunity and isolate high-risk individuals selectively. Then they came back with a model that basically said there would be 2.2 million dead in the U.S. and 500,000 dead in the UK if no action were taken to slow the virus. This model and report largely fueled the hysteria we currently see. Last Thursday, they drastically downgraded their projection to less than 20,000 deaths in the UK. Part of the reason for the downgrade is that a study out of Oxford (another prestigious institution) said that only 0.01 percent (1 out of 10,000) that contract the virus will need hospitalization. Another reason is we just aren’t seeing such horrific outcomes.

It’s important to note that when any “new” disease comes along the mortality (death) rate is always overestimated for several months at a minimum. The reason for this is that the actual number of deaths (the numerator) is known to a high degree of confidence. The number of people infected (the denominator) is grossly underestimated, since 90–95 percent of cases are mild and most people are never tested. For example, if 10 people die and 100 people test positive, then it’s a 10-percent mortality rate. But if the actual number of people who were positive was 2,000, then the mortality rate is only 0.5 percent.

Clearly while one is going through a unique event, no one really knows exactly how it will play out. But if we depend more on real numbers and historical events, as opposed to models (no matter how well designed) that depend on numerous assumptions and operator biases, we will make better decisions.

We also can gain perspective by real historical data that we can all relate to. Consider the following:

• As of 3/27/20 at 1 p.m., there have been 26,448 deaths and 577,660 cases worldwide.
• As of 3/27/20 at 1 p.m., there have been 1,429 deaths and 94,425 cases in the U.S.; that means the overestimated death rate in the U.S. is 1.5 percent, and the actual one will be much lower.
• In New York (greatest number of cases in the U.S.) the death rate is 1.1 percent.
• Per the CDC, the 2017–18 flu hospitalized 810,000 and killed 61,000 in the U.S. (that’s 42.7 times more than the coronavirus has currently killed) and people argue over getting vaccinated.
• Per the Lancet, Dec. 13, 2019, the flu kills 291,000–646,000 per year worldwide.
• In 2017, malaria killed 435,000 worldwide.
• Per the CDC, smoking in the U.S. killed 480,000 last year, 41,000 by secondhand smoke.
• Per the CDC, alcohol in the U.S. killed 88,000 every year between the years 2006–10.
• Per the CDC, the Swine Flu of 2009–10 killed between 151,700 and 575,400 worldwide.
• Per the CDC, the Swine Flu of 2009–10 infected 60.8 million, hospitalized 273,304, and killed 12,469 in the United States.
• Per the CDC, last year 19,510 people were murdered in the U.S., 47,173 committed suicide, and 40,992 died from sepsis.
• 38,800 in the U.S. died in traffic accidents last year.


I acknowledge that the coronavirus is serious, especially for those in the high-risk categories, and we don’t know exactly how it will play out. It does appear though in the overall scheme of things that we’re overreacting a bit. Actually, IMHO more than a little bit.
 
The number of people infected with the virus over the past 30 days continues to rise as the nation has dramatically expanded testing. Of those who have died, approximately 1.6% of total infections, we do not know how many succumbed as the direct result of the virus or died of other ailments, as any death with the virus present is currently being counted as a Coronavirus fatality. The Italian evidence, for example, suggests that only in 12% of deaths is it possible to say the Coronavirus was the main cause of death.

The Coronavirus started in China in early December of 2019; in the subsequent four months the virus has spread to 177 countries and more than 40,000 deaths have so far been recorded. At this same juncture during the Hong Kong Flu (which had many of the same symptoms as the Coronavirus) pandemic in 1968-69, it is estimated that were over 350,000 fatalities globally (40,000 in the United States). Eventually, over 1 million throughout the world (100,000 in the United States) died.

Is the Coronavirus pandemic serious enough to warrant putting much of the nation’s population into house confinement, or wreaking the economy for an indefinite period of time, or prohibiting worshipers from attending their churches, synagogues or mosques, or outlawing freedom of assembly and travel, or destroying businesses that have taken years to build up, or saddling future generations with unfathomable debt? The nation is choosing to plunge millions of people into depression, heart attacks, suicide and unbelievable distress, though many of them are not especially vulnerable and will only suffer mild symptoms or none at all.


Maybe this is a little too hyperbolic, I don't know about plunging "millions of people into depression, heart attacks, suicide and unbelievable distress", hard to tell but maybe not too far off the wall. Especially as time goes on until we finally see a break. Lots of people have lost their jobs, businesses, etc., and it's going to be awhile before things get back to anywhere near normal IMHO.
 

It’s possible that the number of people in the U.S. who are infected with COVID-19 is much bigger than the number that is being currently reported, but many of those people haven’t gotten substantially sick, and so haven’t gotten tested.

The death rate is calculated by dividing the number of people who die by the number who get infected, right? It’s possible that the actual number of people infected with COVID-19 is magnitudes bigger than what is being reported, because most infected people have either no symptoms or minor symptoms, and thus, don’t get tested or reported. If this is the case, then it’s possible that the real death rate is far, far lower than the one that is being reported.

The COVID-19 fatality rate in the U.S. is somewhere around 1.6%. But if the real number of cases is quite a bit higher than currently being reported, the the real fatality rate is a lot closer to that for influenza.
 
The Imperial College in London (one of the most prestigious institutions in the world) initially suggested the best approach was to allow herd immunity and isolate high-risk individuals selectively. Then they came back with a model that basically said there would be 2.2 million dead in the U.S. and 500,000 dead in the UK if no action were taken to slow the virus. This model and report largely fueled the hysteria we currently see. Last Thursday, they drastically downgraded their projection to less than 20,000 deaths in the UK. Part of the reason for the downgrade is that a study out of Oxford (another prestigious institution) said that only 0.01 percent (1 out of 10,000) that contract the virus will need hospitalization. Another reason is we just aren’t seeing such horrific outcomes.

It’s important to note that when any “new” disease comes along the mortality (death) rate is always overestimated for several months at a minimum. The reason for this is that the actual number of deaths (the numerator) is known to a high degree of confidence. The number of people infected (the denominator) is grossly underestimated, since 90–95 percent of cases are mild and most people are never tested. For example, if 10 people die and 100 people test positive, then it’s a 10-percent mortality rate. But if the actual number of people who were positive was 2,000, then the mortality rate is only 0.5 percent.

Clearly while one is going through a unique event, no one really knows exactly how it will play out. But if we depend more on real numbers and historical events, as opposed to models (no matter how well designed) that depend on numerous assumptions and operator biases, we will make better decisions.

We also can gain perspective by real historical data that we can all relate to. Consider the following:

• As of 3/27/20 at 1 p.m., there have been 26,448 deaths and 577,660 cases worldwide.
• As of 3/27/20 at 1 p.m., there have been 1,429 deaths and 94,425 cases in the U.S.; that means the overestimated death rate in the U.S. is 1.5 percent, and the actual one will be much lower.
• In New York (greatest number of cases in the U.S.) the death rate is 1.1 percent.
• Per the CDC, the 2017–18 flu hospitalized 810,000 and killed 61,000 in the U.S. (that’s 42.7 times more than the coronavirus has currently killed) and people argue over getting vaccinated.
• Per the Lancet, Dec. 13, 2019, the flu kills 291,000–646,000 per year worldwide.
• In 2017, malaria killed 435,000 worldwide.
• Per the CDC, smoking in the U.S. killed 480,000 last year, 41,000 by secondhand smoke.
• Per the CDC, alcohol in the U.S. killed 88,000 every year between the years 2006–10.
• Per the CDC, the Swine Flu of 2009–10 killed between 151,700 and 575,400 worldwide.
• Per the CDC, the Swine Flu of 2009–10 infected 60.8 million, hospitalized 273,304, and killed 12,469 in the United States.
• Per the CDC, last year 19,510 people were murdered in the U.S., 47,173 committed suicide, and 40,992 died from sepsis.
• 38,800 in the U.S. died in traffic accidents last year.


I acknowledge that the coronavirus is serious, especially for those in the high-risk categories, and we don’t know exactly how it will play out. It does appear though in the overall scheme of things that we’re overreacting a bit. Actually, IMHO more than a little bit.
Overreacting? Let me change your question around. How many would have died of Covid 19 if there weren't any measures taken? As we see now hospitals are still being overwhelmed with patients. Now imaging a scenario were there weren't any lockdown measures and this virus would have spread freely among the populace. Medical equipment is finite as we all are finding out.

Do I content the mortality rate is as high as the numbers suggest? No, I don't. What I do content is that events have already shown that this virus is capable of completely overwhelming the ability of the healthcare system to deal with it. This has not happened since 1918. And considering that fact it's simply common sense that we don't risk not acting on a worst-case scenario basis.
 
The Imperial College in London (one of the most prestigious institutions in the world) initially suggested the best approach was to allow herd immunity and isolate high-risk individuals selectively. Then they came back with a model that basically said there would be 2.2 million dead in the U.S. and 500,000 dead in the UK if no action were taken to slow the virus. This model and report largely fueled the hysteria we currently see. Last Thursday, they drastically downgraded their projection to less than 20,000 deaths in the UK. Part of the reason for the downgrade is that a study out of Oxford (another prestigious institution) said that only 0.01 percent (1 out of 10,000) that contract the virus will need hospitalization. Another reason is we just aren’t seeing such horrific outcomes.

It’s important to note that when any “new” disease comes along the mortality (death) rate is always overestimated for several months at a minimum. The reason for this is that the actual number of deaths (the numerator) is known to a high degree of confidence. The number of people infected (the denominator) is grossly underestimated, since 90–95 percent of cases are mild and most people are never tested. For example, if 10 people die and 100 people test positive, then it’s a 10-percent mortality rate. But if the actual number of people who were positive was 2,000, then the mortality rate is only 0.5 percent.

Clearly while one is going through a unique event, no one really knows exactly how it will play out. But if we depend more on real numbers and historical events, as opposed to models (no matter how well designed) that depend on numerous assumptions and operator biases, we will make better decisions.

We also can gain perspective by real historical data that we can all relate to. Consider the following:

• As of 3/27/20 at 1 p.m., there have been 26,448 deaths and 577,660 cases worldwide.
• As of 3/27/20 at 1 p.m., there have been 1,429 deaths and 94,425 cases in the U.S.; that means the overestimated death rate in the U.S. is 1.5 percent, and the actual one will be much lower.
• In New York (greatest number of cases in the U.S.) the death rate is 1.1 percent.
• Per the CDC, the 2017–18 flu hospitalized 810,000 and killed 61,000 in the U.S. (that’s 42.7 times more than the coronavirus has currently killed) and people argue over getting vaccinated.
• Per the Lancet, Dec. 13, 2019, the flu kills 291,000–646,000 per year worldwide.
• In 2017, malaria killed 435,000 worldwide.
• Per the CDC, smoking in the U.S. killed 480,000 last year, 41,000 by secondhand smoke.
• Per the CDC, alcohol in the U.S. killed 88,000 every year between the years 2006–10.
• Per the CDC, the Swine Flu of 2009–10 killed between 151,700 and 575,400 worldwide.
• Per the CDC, the Swine Flu of 2009–10 infected 60.8 million, hospitalized 273,304, and killed 12,469 in the United States.
• Per the CDC, last year 19,510 people were murdered in the U.S., 47,173 committed suicide, and 40,992 died from sepsis.
• 38,800 in the U.S. died in traffic accidents last year.


I acknowledge that the coronavirus is serious, especially for those in the high-risk categories, and we don’t know exactly how it will play out. It does appear though in the overall scheme of things that we’re overreacting a bit. Actually, IMHO more than a little bit.
Overreacting? Let me change your question around. How many would have died of Covid 19 if there weren't any measures taken? As we see now hospitals are still being overwhelmed with patients. Now imaging a scenario were there weren't any lockdown measures and this virus would have spread freely among the populace. Medical equipment is finite as we all are finding out.

Do I content the mortality rate is as high as the numbers suggest? No, I don't. What I do content is that events have already shown that this virus is capable of completely overwhelming the ability of the healthcare system to deal with it. This has not happened since 1918. And considering that fact it's simply common sense that we don't risk not acting on a worst-case scenario basis.

Doesn't have to be no measures at all. Other countries like Swedn ans south Korea have dealt with COVID-19 without resorting to the draconian measures that we have. People are going to die from the overreacting, more than you might think. We don't know how long social distancing measures and lockdowns can be maintained without major consequences to the economy and society. Some people are suggesting a depression to rival that of the 1930s. In the longer term, more lives will be lost if we continue to act on the worst-case scenario. How many victims of financial ruin will end their own lives? In the modern era, for every one percent increase in the unemployment rate, there has typically been an increase of about one percent in the number of suicides. A study conducted by Brenner in 1979, found that for every 10 percent increase in the unemployment rate, mortality increased by 1.2 percent, cardiovascular disease by 1.7 percent, cirrhosis of the liver by 1.3 percent, suicides by 1.7%, arrests by 4 percent, and reported assaults by 0.8 percent (see here). How many lost lives out of 300 million in the USA does a 10 percent, 15 percent, 20 percent unemployment rate represent?
 
The Imperial College in London (one of the most prestigious institutions in the world) initially suggested the best approach was to allow herd immunity and isolate high-risk individuals selectively. Then they came back with a model that basically said there would be 2.2 million dead in the U.S. and 500,000 dead in the UK if no action were taken to slow the virus. This model and report largely fueled the hysteria we currently see. Last Thursday, they drastically downgraded their projection to less than 20,000 deaths in the UK. Part of the reason for the downgrade is that a study out of Oxford (another prestigious institution) said that only 0.01 percent (1 out of 10,000) that contract the virus will need hospitalization. Another reason is we just aren’t seeing such horrific outcomes.

It’s important to note that when any “new” disease comes along the mortality (death) rate is always overestimated for several months at a minimum. The reason for this is that the actual number of deaths (the numerator) is known to a high degree of confidence. The number of people infected (the denominator) is grossly underestimated, since 90–95 percent of cases are mild and most people are never tested. For example, if 10 people die and 100 people test positive, then it’s a 10-percent mortality rate. But if the actual number of people who were positive was 2,000, then the mortality rate is only 0.5 percent.

Clearly while one is going through a unique event, no one really knows exactly how it will play out. But if we depend more on real numbers and historical events, as opposed to models (no matter how well designed) that depend on numerous assumptions and operator biases, we will make better decisions.

We also can gain perspective by real historical data that we can all relate to. Consider the following:

• As of 3/27/20 at 1 p.m., there have been 26,448 deaths and 577,660 cases worldwide.
• As of 3/27/20 at 1 p.m., there have been 1,429 deaths and 94,425 cases in the U.S.; that means the overestimated death rate in the U.S. is 1.5 percent, and the actual one will be much lower.
• In New York (greatest number of cases in the U.S.) the death rate is 1.1 percent.
• Per the CDC, the 2017–18 flu hospitalized 810,000 and killed 61,000 in the U.S. (that’s 42.7 times more than the coronavirus has currently killed) and people argue over getting vaccinated.
• Per the Lancet, Dec. 13, 2019, the flu kills 291,000–646,000 per year worldwide.
• In 2017, malaria killed 435,000 worldwide.
• Per the CDC, smoking in the U.S. killed 480,000 last year, 41,000 by secondhand smoke.
• Per the CDC, alcohol in the U.S. killed 88,000 every year between the years 2006–10.
• Per the CDC, the Swine Flu of 2009–10 killed between 151,700 and 575,400 worldwide.
• Per the CDC, the Swine Flu of 2009–10 infected 60.8 million, hospitalized 273,304, and killed 12,469 in the United States.
• Per the CDC, last year 19,510 people were murdered in the U.S., 47,173 committed suicide, and 40,992 died from sepsis.
• 38,800 in the U.S. died in traffic accidents last year.


I acknowledge that the coronavirus is serious, especially for those in the high-risk categories, and we don’t know exactly how it will play out. It does appear though in the overall scheme of things that we’re overreacting a bit. Actually, IMHO more than a little bit.
Overreacting? Let me change your question around. How many would have died of Covid 19 if there weren't any measures taken? As we see now hospitals are still being overwhelmed with patients. Now imaging a scenario were there weren't any lockdown measures and this virus would have spread freely among the populace. Medical equipment is finite as we all are finding out.

Do I content the mortality rate is as high as the numbers suggest? No, I don't. What I do content is that events have already shown that this virus is capable of completely overwhelming the ability of the healthcare system to deal with it. This has not happened since 1918. And considering that fact it's simply common sense that we don't risk not acting on a worst-case scenario basis.

Doesn't have to be no measures at all. Other countries like Swedn ans south Korea have dealt with COVID-19 without resorting to the draconian measures that we have. People are going to die from the overreacting, more than you might think. We don't know how long social distancing measures and lockdowns can be maintained without major consequences to the economy and society. Some people are suggesting a depression to rival that of the 1930s. In the longer term, more lives will be lost if we continue to act on the worst-case scenario. How many victims of financial ruin will end their own lives? In the modern era, for every one percent increase in the unemployment rate, there has typically been an increase of about one percent in the number of suicides. A study conducted by Brenner in 1979, found that for every 10 percent increase in the unemployment rate, mortality increased by 1.2 percent, cardiovascular disease by 1.7 percent, cirrhosis of the liver by 1.3 percent, suicides by 1.7%, arrests by 4 percent, and reported assaults by 0.8 percent (see here). How many lost lives out of 300 million in the USA does a 10 percent, 15 percent, 20 percent unemployment rate represent?
Let's start with you arguing for the Swedish and Korean response. The Korean response is one of test and isolate. This requires ample testing capability. Something the US has lagged in compared to other countries, so that strategy is not viable. The Swedish one is one of voluntary measures. This with the caveat that the government will reevaluate as the situation worsens. Guess what it is worsening. This is as far as I know exactly the approach the US is taking.

As your second point yes there is an obvious cost in lives to a worsening of the economy. The problem is nobody knows what the economic cost will be. We do however have a pretty good idea what the cost will be if this virus runs unchecked. You can argue the actual mortality rate as much as you want but it is undeniable that it will be high. Something by the way that has an economic impact too, in terms of loss of productivity and fear.

Now let's talk about people's and industry to deal with this virus responsible as your link argued. On this board here and now I'm constantly talking to people just like you who make an argument of some kind stating how this virus isn't bad enough to warrant responsible behavior and it's been going on for weeks. Going from "it's just the flu" too, "it's a conspiracy" too, "the economic cost is too great" or "I don't know what percentages mean." If we here can't even agree on what constitutes responsible behavior, people who almost by definition try to be informed, how can you argue that everybody else will? As for companies, companies want to make money, most of them if they have to choose between acting responsible or protect their bottom line they will choose the latter. A restaurant for instance as in your example will not cut their capacity by 75 percent or something to allow for proper social distancing. If they do they wouldn't cover cost that simple.
 

Forum List

Back
Top