I have seen wapo video of Michigan protest. People there were angry because they want to get their hair done or buy paint and fertilizer. They want others to go to work to they can stay home.
0-9: 1 0%
10-19: 6 0.1%
20-29: 56 0.4%
30-39: 227 1.6%
40-49: 535 3.7%
50-59: 1410 9.8%
60-69: 2863 20.0%
70-79: 3811 26.6%
80-89: 1753 25.4%
90+: 12.2%
Most working age people will be just fine. Except they are jobless. Terrible times.
[0] https://covid19tracker.health.ny.gov/views/NYS-COVID19-Track...
Not sure pointing fingers helps. Someone could also point fingers and claim "so you're willing to let people starve in the streets, how altruistic of you". It's a highly emotional and volatile situation, let's keep our cool.
Would you please be able to expand on the 'seasonal flu' point you made?
A study from Santa Clara just recently found that there are probably 50 to 85 times MORE infections than originally thought, just that the vast majority of them were asymptomatic.
Should we be focusing our energy on protecting our elderly and immunocompromised? Yes, absolutely.
Should we be mandating that people stay home, putting millions of perfectly healthy people out of work? It's absolutely insane to me that this was even considered, let alone implemented.
The flu and vaccine point is also well taken. For the entirety of human history the flu was a health risk for the elderly and life expectancy [excluding under 5s] was 60-70 [1]. The contemporary expectation that everyone should make it into their 80s and 90s is a strong outlier.
OTOH, people counter by pointing out that NYC is already at 0.16 [14000 / 8400000] fatality rate [2], and it's unclear how many more until this wave recedes. Then anecdotes about dead healthcare workers, reinfections, mutation rates, etc.
[0] https://www.doh.wa.gov/Portals/1/Documents/1600/coronavirus/...
[1] https://www.quora.com/Excluding-child-mortality-what-is-the-...
[2] https://covid19tracker.health.ny.gov/views/NYS-COVID19-Track...
I don't. Do you? We are 3 months into this mess and have wildly divergent facts that can't be reasonably reconciled.
Some attempts:
* The regular flu season uses 75% capacity of the system. A disease that's 3x worse will lead to 225% capacity needs.
* Maybe this disease is remarkably more contagious than the flu. In a tightly packed place like NYC, you might get all the cases that you're ever going to get flowing through the system within x weeks, whereas a less infectious flu season might trickle the same caseload within 2x weeks.
* This is out of the ballpark deadly, 10x-100x worse than the flu.
Besides, many strains of flu has a vaccines available. Nothing of that sort exists for corona.
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/season/flu-season-2017-2018.ht...
Vaccines existing for the flu is the point, COVID is way less deadly considering we don't_ have a vaccine.
"The city has added more than 3,700 additional people who were presumed to have died of the coronavirus but had never tested positive."
I suppose the New York Times is propoganda? I know Donald Trump would agree with that statement...
Paraphrasing mostly, but this is Dr. Birx admitting that the government is overreporting by default. So even if you exclude NYC, it doesn't change my point.
Similarly if you have type 1 diabetes and you get infected with corona, you probably died with diabetic complications, but without corona you would have been totally fine.
Not sure how that doesn't change your point. In fact you are conflating two different things. On one hand you are arguing about overreporting and on the other hand don't even want to take into consideration common practices in disease statistics. Almost makes me think you are not arguing in good faith.
We need detailed demographics of infections and deaths. We need to break down the risks, because a blanket totalitarian response of "SHUT DOWN LITERALLY EVERYTHING" is absolutely ridiculous when the general population is going to be fine. We didn't shut down the world economy for SARS, H1N1, MERS or any particularly bad flu season and we shouldn't shut down for this. We should focus our limited resources on protecting the vulnerable and let everyone else get back to work. More lives will be destroyed from an extended shutdown than this virus ever could.
Look at Sweden. They decided to let the people at risk stay home while others go out and about their business. Didn't work out too well for them.
In US people are willing to sacrifice human life for economic activity
How many additional COVID19 deaths would you accept to avoid a crippling economic depression? If the answer is zero, you are not being serious. If the answer is more than zero, then as Churchill noted, we've established what kind of person you are and are now haggling over price.
Read literally, this says everyone who returns to work will die. For the future, I recommend more nuance in your writing.
Losing your livelihood does carry a substantial risk of increased death.
I'm thankful right now that I live in Canada where every week—sometimes multiple times a week—measures are added or adjusted in order to prevent anyone from falling through the cracks. Some businesses have faltered or are closing permanently, but many others are receiving substantial support.
We're currently beating the projections in Ontario, and while this is not an easy time, every action necessary is being taken to at least try and prevent as many deaths by this thing as possible.
I think things would look different if the United States had taken different measures to support people during this crisis.
The barber in this narrative should receive enough aid to get by, and enough support for their business for it to persist until it can reopen—and the people who just want their hair done should just have to wait.
Of course, such measures can only work for a while until things start breaking down. We can do without barbers for quite a while, but the more professions are offline, the worse the accumulated effect is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace,_order,_and_good_governm...
To be fair that is not the actual choice on offer. Its more like being jobless, vs accepting a certain (in some cases low) probability of dying.
That is not the choice. The choice is between some uncertain chance of death plus a chance to spread the infection and a certain lack of income.
Is that actually the choice being made here?
Part of astroturfing is getting the grass roots to participate.
I wonder how astroturfed this was: SF Anti-mask League 1918. https://mobile.twitter.com/timkmak/status/125193624283456307...