Nothing you’ve said remotely contradicts what I said. Feel free to provide actual evidence that my facts are incorrect.

Why shouldn’t we care about a virus that mainly kills old and sick people? Especially when that alone can overwhelm our medical infrastructure.

Additionally, even a 0.5% mortality rate for young and otherwise healthy people is much higher than the flu, and serious cause for concern. I’ll take a 0.5% chance of dying over 2% any day, but I still will take a lot of actions if I can to avoid a 1/100 chance that my daughter has to grow up without one of her parents.

As long as we’re talking about facts and misinformation, let’s talk about your assertion that mortality rates are going to be lower than Wuhan. They may be, but it’s way too early to say. We don’t yet have reliable data on how many mild cases are missed in the official figures, how the remaining unrecovered patients will fare, or how many deaths have been caused by the virus but are not attributed to it in official figures.

Look, I get that you’re scared and lashing out at people who are saying you have reason to be, but you’re not going to make any difference here. This is a serious global issue, which is why every country with significant infections is going to incredible lengths to try and contain it. I’d suggest you stop trying to police people on the internet who aren’t meeting your personal standards for reacting to this and instead do some prep to keep you and your loved ones safe and secure.

I provided a link to “actual evidence” in the post. Read it instead of posting rumor and opinion as fact.

Nobody said you “shouldn’t worry” about a virus that kills old people. But if you’re not old or sick, you should worry about it less than other things. Like getting the flu.

”I get that you’re scared and lashing out”

What manner of gaslighting is this? I am absolutely not scared, and I am trying to spread accurate information, in order to counter fear-mongering posts like your own.

See, there you go again. You’re suggesting that someone young and healthy should be more concerned about the flu, which is absolutely ridiculous and not supported by any data. The only “evidence” you posted is that the elderly and sick are most at risk, which no one was disputing, and which does not support your position that the flu is more dangerous to young and healthy people than this virus.

For someone 'rational' and 'cool-headed' you seem awfully hysterical, peppering this entire discussion with your certainty. It's fascinating.

This one has a 3-4% death rate and debilitating, lifelong consequences for those that 'recover'. Its a big deal.

If denial makes one feel better, go for it. Post it here though, and expect to be rapidly disabused.

It does not have a 3-4% fatality rate. You are either getting bad information, or you are making things up.

The latest numbers from the WHO and the CCDC are an average case fatality rate of 2.3%. This is highly likely to be an overestimate, and the deaths are skewed heavily to the old and infirm.

From the most recent CCDC report [1] those under 40, case fatality was 0.2%. Under 50, 0.4%; under 60, 1.3%.

For those with no pre-existing illnesses, case fatality was 0.9%, across all age groups.

[1]http://weekly.chinacdc.cn/en/article/id/e53946e2-c6c4-41e9-9...

Note the fatality rate is deaths divided by current infected. But the people dying are those that contracted the disease 4-5 days ago (folks don't die the instant they get sick). So the death rate on folks ultimately reaches nearly double the reported rate?

But draw your own conclusions:

https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.h...

No. This is completely incorrect.

The case fatality rate is the number of deaths divided by confirmed infections. This is what is being reported.

Infection Fatality Ratio changes the denominator to a model for the currently infected population. This is a smaller number, because the denominator is much larger.

There is no mortality metric being reported by reputable sources that is multiples higher than the CFR, as you suggest.

https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situati...

Or, look at the timeline for infection vs eventual fatalities. As I said, draw your own conclusions from the reported data by Johns Hopkins (do they pass the filter for 'reputable'?).

The most useful number I know is, survival chances. How many in 100 stand to be alive say 2 months later. The numbers seem worse than 98, by a good margin. At least worldwide.