Because as of yesterday 250,000+ confirmed cased were in New York. According to the new study over 12,500,000 actually had it yet we have the same number of deaths.
The death rate goes down.
Ok, but you're not grasping the point at all. You are applying a "study" (that wasn't even peer reviewed - yay science) that went out into the socializing population and advertised that they would be "testing" before the study. Not only are you taking a group of people who are more likely to be infected (they are socializing) - you are further skewing those results by offering free testing, which all but insures ANYONE with symptoms who couldn't get tested is going to show up. Think about that.
So now, I have a skewed group that I've ensured will have a higher rate of infection through my methods, and I compound that with a 1.7% false positive rate and I still might only have 2.5%.
Well, I could do a similar study and go into a Covid ward at a hospital and take a test and say, "90% of the people tested were infected" - of course they were. It was a group of people who were skewed toward infection rates.
Yet, based on this study, the WHO and other organizations have extrapolated that we are no where near where we need to be in terms of herd immunity.
More to the point, I have a study of 800,000+ people that suggests 50,000 of those people will die. Who do you think has more solid stats? That study, or the one with 3300 people?
I didn't imply anything of the sort.
No, you are implying it. You may not grasp that you are implying it - that's a different issue - but you are certainly implying it. You are basically saying that since there is a cost, we shouldn't attempt to intervene.
i.e. - Why should the government effect the businesses of cigarette manufacturers by forcing them to create packaging that scares their customers? Have they considered the effect on those businesses and the economy?
Why should the government back health care? It costs tax payers millions just because someone wants to smoke or become obese?
Of course we have interventions - in this case, the only intervention that will work is avoidance.
I believe it is always important to find some agreement in any debate.
I haven't argued against anything like that. I simply asked at what point do you implement it? What death rate is acceptable to those who believe the above is the only answer?
It's not just about death rate. It's about resources. Think of it like this - if we have a hospital with 10 beds in it and 20 people become infected and need ventilators - what happens then? Essentially there are 10 people who a hospital does not exist for. What is their death rate? 100%? 50%?
And the states and businesses are trying to support these efforts to save lives - what about those costs? If they are struggling to get by because the load is just too much - or their employees won't work, or they get sick - what happens when we have to double the load because people are all getting sick at once?
As I pointed out, using your heart disease angle - we spend over $1T/year on heart disease treatment in this country. How do we arrive at that number? I mean, that's $1T+ in resources down the tubes. At what point do we cut that off?
It isn't like anyone ever says, "Oh, just 60,000 people a year die from the flu. We shouldn't even bother treating it. It costs too much." These people get treatment, and a lot of them die - but we try. And in this case, if we don't try - a lot MORE people will die because at some point, people won't get treatment because it won't exist.
Per capita probably similar to European countries.
Yeah, I think you missed my point but that is because I wasn't organised in my thoughts here so that is probably on me.
What I am saying is, if we DON'T shut down and everyone goes out and gets sick - what do you think the cost of all that healthcare will be? It is already at a point to be at least the 3rd deadliest thing we face this year, if not 1 or 2.
And our government right now is paying for A LOT of that healthcare that these patients are receiving. We overlook that. But if we had completely free, government funded healthcare - I guarantee there would be full on lockdowns everywhere. It wouldn't be up to governors, and we wouldn't have a president saying he wants to get the country open. It would be a no-brainer decision that if the gov't doesn't keep people in their homes, they would be crushed - so the lockdowns would be BRUTAL.
Just because someone doesn't grasp the cost to society of NOT having a lock down, doesn't mean they aren't there. It isn't just deaths, there is an economic costs to letting people out to run their businesses, etc.
So then follow your point...if it costs so much at what point does your government step in to curb those costs?
If the government can fund and intervene in these diseases and cut the rate in half through public policy, would you be in favor of that?
It really is determined by the cost/reward. So if we put a number on this and say, for instance, that if we let this run wild there will be x amount of sickness, y amount of deaths and the cost of medical treatment will be $1.5T this year - but if we get everyone to stay home and give the least wealthy 70% of the country $Z/month and it costs us $1.6T and saves 200,000 lives/month - Would you pull the trigger on that? Sure, it costs $100B more but - 20,000 lives. Are those lives worth $100B?
Now, what if I said, "Hey - you could lose a million lives and this could cost $1.5T. Or we might lose 50,000. No way to be sure, but there's a real chance of the losses adding up quickly." - which policy would you go with?
Actually the statistics for deaths of COVID are over 4 months so its 50,000 in 4 months.
Ok, on 03/24/2020 there were 54,453 cases and 780 deaths. We had just started to implement lock down recommendations at this point.
Today, 1 month later, with the lock downs, there are 902,000 confirmed cases and 50,988 deaths and still over 750,000 people who have yet to recover.
Just yesterday we had 46,023 confirmed cases and 2,360 deaths.
I'd say, in 1 month we have had 50,000 deaths. I'd say, based on yesterday's total, and the daily totals we've been seeing, next month is going to be worse.
Herd immunity can be achieved either naturally or by vaccination. I think the majority of this forum before 4 months ago probably didn't know that between 22,000 and 66,000 people die every year from the flu. And 90% of those deaths are within a 6 month period of time.....and its something we actually have a vaccine for....and in terms of society and everyday life, nobody really changed much of anything.
Again, you're missing the point. You are arguing for us not to have these lock downs - but what's the alternative? Let it just run free? Well, to your point - we have a large number of deaths from the flu and that's with herd immunity AND vaccination.
And this disease is much more transmittable than the flu.
So you are trying to compare an infection with herd immunity and a vaccine to this, but you are ignoring all the deaths STILL present from that disease. If the death rate is high in the flu - what do you think it would be for a flu to which we had no immunity and no vaccine? That doesn't even take into account whether or not it is more transmittable or more deadly.
Yet what happens if the data eventually tells you it is?
Ummm - if the data actually said that, then that would be an intelligent argument.
So far you're ignoring actual collected data and basing your argument on a study with obvious flaws, from authors with an obvious agenda, that hasn't even passed peer review. And again, you're throwing out a data set of millions of people and ignoring it, yet basing your argument on a study of 3,300 people advertised on Facebook.
IF the data somehow changes, then I will have to change my mind. But as of today, I stand by my statement, there is no intelligent way of arguing that the death rate and transmission rates of Covid are not much greater than the flu.
