We have to start in March. What happened before that time is irrelevant since everything was attributed to the flu.So are you excluding the older people that die from the flu? Or are you only doing it with coronavirus? And they have been going down from when? The past 14 months?
The past 14 months have been the highest flu rate in the last decade my guy. It was what In 19-20? 100k right? When the annual average of the flu is 35-40k. So it’s very likely it’s “going down” because the average is usually much lower. Coronavirus attacks the lungs. The flu does not...and you need lungs to breathe if you didn’t know. Do you know how many old people the annual flu kills, dawg? And you’re talking like old people only die from coronavirus lmao. Very contradicting. Your whole argument goes to shit once you realize the age range and percentage of deaths regarding annual flu.
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/index.htmKey Updates for Week 14, ending April 4, 2020
Laboratory confirmed flu activity as reported by clinical laboratories continues to decrease sharply and is now low
We have to start in March. What happened before that time is irrelevant since everything was attributed to the flu.
I don't know the exact numbers so we'll use a hypothetical. Lets say normally each year in March there are 3,000 flu deaths. This year in March there are 2,000 flu death and another 1,000 that are really are flu deaths but they attributing it to coronavirus. They most likely are padding the coronavirus deaths.What about someone having cancer and then catching influenza and dying? What about old people, who are 75%+ of the deaths of the annual flu. Did you know that? So if we exclude old people from both.....corona is going to have a lot more. Because why? Because it infects the lungs. Which say for example a baby has asthma and catches it.....might die. So the difference is clear. Just about understanding it.
Age death range for corona is really all over. Annual flu has a way higher death rate amongst the old. That’s just the facts man.
If you want to talk about a lot of old people with corona. You need to talk about the old people from the annual flu if you are going to attempt to make that point because truthfully it blows corona out the water as far as old people dying from the annual flu. So if we exclude that like a lot of your guys argument suggest, then you wouldn’t have an argument left.
The argument you are making doesn’t hold up.
Your answers are very brief and indirect.
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Calibri,Geneva,sans-serif]Party pooper. Right now this is what the media lives for. A new toy to play with.People...’
lets get real here.
I want to see people suffering and dying from the regular fucking flu here.
its just as bad
Every model has been wrong with the death rate..
Chinese virus will end up comparable with the annual flu death rate.
It has been argued that it doesn't matter, since it served to save lives, save people from ill health (long & short term), & spare hospitals from being burdened beyond their capabilities to help the suffering & dying.
Again, arguably, it doesn't matter. See above.
Furthermore, you don't that.
Also, much is unknown about this virus, it's ability to mutate, when a vaccine might be available (if ever), potential 2nd/3rd waves upcoming, reinfection, the efficacy of various drug interventions (so-called "cures"), death rate, infection rate, if it may cause infection after being airborne for many hours, etc, etc, etc. COVID-19 has only been around for a few months. OTOH the flu has been studied for decades.
Better to overstate the potential harm than understate it leading to much greater negative consequences. For example, the 1918 Spanish flu.
Better safe than sorry.
I don't know the exact numbers so we'll use a hypothetical. Lets say normally each year in March there are 3,000 flu deaths. This year in March there are 2,000 flu death and another 1,000 that are really are flu deaths but they attributing it to coronavirus. They most likely are padding the coronavirus deaths.
Again. I'm looking at the repercussions model of shutting down the economy. Far worse devastation of lives destroyed with deaths , poverty , suicides , and eventually a upward tick with crime. Think ahead is what I would advise
Governments may tend to overstate things in these situations, rather than understate them, potentially leading to far worse consequences should things turn out much worse than they modeled, such as widespread riots, looting, anarchy, etc.
Secondly, Sweden has left their economy open, but how's that working out for them:
Sweden's Relaxed Approach to the Coronavirus Could Already Be Backfiring
https://time.com/5817412/sweden-coronavirus/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=212&v=0wpkFZUougc&feature=emb_title
The Netherlands Is Letting People Get Sick to Beat Coronavirus
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozmh40wwAGc
"The big lesson from South Korea's coronavirus response"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BE-cA4UK07c
"The contrast between Canada and Sweden's response to COVID-19 pandemic"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6cdZbISRTM
People who have been ventilated have described the experience as awful beyond belief:
https://theprovince.com/news/differ...tors/wcm/c10257f4-54a9-4176-9f21-30c6acd241e3
Hopefully you won't have to experience that "awful beyond belief".
Wear a mask & stay safe. Good luck.
Govts have already overstated things using models that never came close to the original predictions of those models..
No doubt in my mind , that we'll be looking back wondering what the hell were we thinking shutting down the economy over some bad models.. Models that probably won't reach higher end annual flu death numbers..