Yet we don't lockdown all drivers from driving because drunk drivers contribute to 10,000 deaths a year.....
That wasn't the point. It's that BUTWHATABOUTCANCER!!?? isn't relevant to our public policy response to a pandemic. It's a red herring.
Finally, CV can be more serious than the flu, for those over 65 with co-morbidities. It can be less serious than the flu, for the very young who seem nearly unaffected and at close to zero risk of CV caused death. And whether or not for a general population over a time it is more or less serious is unknown, but if (as it seems) it can prompt herd immunity then the flu is a greater risk because herd immunity does not exist for flu viruses.
There's nothing in the record, including the 100k deaths so far, and the slow, steady rate that is going to get us to 200k deaths by September to indicate it's less serious than "the flu."
Still, even for even those vulnerable oldsters who die it is seven times more likely to be from Cancer and Heart Disease/Stroke than COVID.
So the lesson is, protect old people by isolating them, not locking down 30,000,000 people, most of whom are not carriers and not vulnerable.
Interesting. Who isn't a "carrier?" CDC says it's the symptomatic and the asymptomatic. What share of the population can get infected but doesn't risk anyone else? Cite?
You didn't do anything wrong, the CDC claim (as we know it) doesn't make sense for New York.
Pandemics differ. The greater the heterogenic population, the lower the threshold required - the most vulnerable being the early pandemic victims and thus 'starvng' the virus of the easiest pickings in subsequent outbreaks. This is unlike the 1918 flu, which struck a broad demographic of very young, working age, and old.
That makes no sense. In Tennessee, 99% of us haven't been infected. There's no shortage of victims here and in most states. Even in NYC, 80% have NOT been infected, so there are plenty of possible victims left there as well.
In fact, the worry now in the US and UK is that we are running out of people to put into vaccine trials, which may hamper vaccine development and certification.
Who is expressing this "worry?" Cite?
For NYC I would go with Worldometers. For anyplace else I am unsure. It would seem that different locations have different expressions of virulence. (EG the Princess Diamond).
Worldometers doesn't tell us the IFR....
We are not less than halfway, and certainly over the top of the current wave. At this point the yearly total, even with a second wave will be 140K to 180K. And yes, those numbers do mean something, they provide the relative differences of vulnerabilities in the worst outbreak in the US, NY.
That's your ignorant opinion (like everyone else's really), but it's still early in the 1st quarter. With 96% or so not infected YET, we don't have any idea what the rest of the summer will look like, much less this fall and early winter. You can guess, just like someone gambling on an NFL game can guess the final score in the 1st Quarter, but that's all it is. So we'll know the "mortality" rate in a year or so. Quoting it now is pointless, just like quoting it in April was pointless.
The "at risk" population is a matter of degree. At the moment, its clear that age, sex, and comorbidities are the primary drivers of risk for infection and risk of death (2/3rds are male). None the less the stats are clear to me: regardless of co-morbidities the virus is 16 times more likely to kill an old person than a person under 65.
Clearly the danger to the middle aged and younger were way overblown...even for NY.
Sure, if you're not one of the half the population who is 'middle age' or younger, and you don't have any pre-existing conditions, you're not likely to die. So who cares about the other half of the adult population, right?
