I really hate wasting time on this but since you asked, here's a variety of quotes I grabbed scanning back just a week or two.
That's not a fair characterization. I said it causes pneumonia so its not "just a cold virus". But I do stand by my condemnation of the hysteria, yes. Its unwarranted and in my view, still very much a likely factor or even main cause of the deaths.
It remains almost only those already close to death, whether by age or illness, that are dying. Was everyone planning on them living forever? People may see them as dying prematurely. I see them as dying late, just not as late as previously projected.
You bring up the various actions that government is taking as "hysteria" without any evidence to show that it's hysteria, even blaming the deaths on it?!
You ignore the mortality and hospitalization rates of the young simply because it's primarily the old and less healthy who are dying.
As far as I know, its still old people that are chiefly affected. That being the case, old people and those with serious medical issues should isolate themselves rather than cancel the Olympics and shut down countries and destroy economies. Doing things that is going to make it difficult, impossible or expensive to ensure those same old and sick people get fresh food is going to deny them the nutrition they will need to stay healthy you know? There are other things that can kill them besides corona.
People eating out of cans for two weeks....what hell do you think that is going to play? You cannot get fresh lettuce out of a can.
You say the solution is to isolate the older and infirm despite all the medical authorities in the world pointing out that that won't work because there are many asymptomatic carriers AND because it affects younger and healthy people too. And then you say that the food supply will be severely affected even though there doesn't appear to be any evidence that this is so. I haven't heard of any food shortages in Italy, the hardest hit place.
Once again, influenza has killed more people this cold/flu season and the danger is primarily to the old and already sick, just as it is and always has been with the flu. If we canceled the Olympics because of flu there never would have been an Olympics ever.
Even assuming Covid 19 has a death rate one or two percent higher than some typical flu is not sufficient reason for these drastic measures. The economic and social gamble to save the lives of those already close to death anyway, people who would have died long ago in the conditions of just 80 years ago, is foolish at best.
Isolating the old and sick makes sense. Isolating the young and healthy does not.
Here you are again minimizing it as being no worse than the flu completely ignoring all the reasons why it's a serious pandemic (mainly the fact that it's novel and is more infectious than the flu and there seems to be more light symptoms/asymptomatic carriers).
I guess I should say this again because its happening just like I said: This virus cannot be stopped. We have a virus for which 80 percent of people who even get it will show no or very mild symptoms, and it cannot be stopped. Therefore, I see only detriment and danger in shutting down economies.
You're missing the point which is, basically, the whole flattening of the curve thing. The reason for the unprecedented actions taken to shut down "non-essential" business is that governments are trying to prevent their health systems from getting overwhelmed. From an economic perspective, would it be better not to shut down economies at all? It's difficult to say. Many people seem to believe that not taking these actions would result in worse economic impacts. From a health and human safety perspective the answer should be clear by now.
I will also say again that its mostly old people who are in danger. So the simple answer is for old people to isolate themselves as the virus runs its course, which it will, like it or not. Unplugging economies will have health effects. Them failing to restart when plugged back in will have even more. If the gas stops, the food stops. If the food stops, health will suffer. If the money stops, the utilities stop. If the utilities stop, health will suffer.
Again you're parroting the fallacy about old people. Yes it's "mostly" old people but so what? There are many young people affected too. Young people are getting deathly ill too. And if ICU beds and respirators are in short supply then many young people will die too. There's a good chance
this priest would have survived had he used a ventilator.
And then you talk about stoppages of food, gas and utilities. No country is shutting down essential industries and services and they are not likely to do so. There is no logical cause and effect here.
Okay. But is the flu different?
Another instance where you minimize it as compared to the flu. This
respiratory therapist feels otherwise.
I cannot confirm this but it was mentioned on another site that doctors are looking into the possibility that ibuprofen use is a reason why so many died in Italy. Not saying its a fact, its just what I heard. I still don't have a clear reason for all the deaths in Italy except the "they hug and kiss a lot" theory from an article I posted earlier. It still just doesn't look right and same with South Korea. If the virus itself was so deadly we would see this repeated in many other places by now would we not?
Here you're again ignoring what's happening. Or not understanding the math. Or something. I don't know your logic.
Again, the whole point of all these government actions is to avoid following Italy's path. As far is it getting repeated, that seems to be happening, as expected. Iran was already slammed when you wrote this. Take a look at the news from
Madrid today.
COVID-19: Approximately 9,115 deaths reported worldwide; 150 deaths in the U.S., as of Mar. 19, 2020.*
Flu: 291,000 to 646,000 deaths worldwide; 12,000 to 61,000 deaths in the U.S. per year."
Again minimizing Covid-19 because the flu kills more people. I'm paraphrasing but you are essentially saying that it's no worse than the flu. It's still beside the point.
The annual flu doesn't overwhelm our health systems.
The only thing that is going stop, or truly slow it down, is going to be spring. Basically there is no such thing as a proper quarantine for this and the experience of other countries is showing that well.
Here you are repeating the wishful thinking that warmer weather will have a significant effect even though the virus is doing just fine in warm countries such as Australia and South Africa. Not to mention California and Florida. And you're ignoring the countries that seem to be doing well namely Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore and South Korea. And even mainland China.
Once again 80 percent of infected people will suffer only mild symptoms or even none. The overwhelming majority of deaths are the elderly and those with previous conditions. Calm down. The only people that need to isolate themselves are the elderly and those already weak and ill. What is idiocy is locking down the world.
Here is the basic crux of your whole "argument" if you can call it that. Most people won't get sick. Most of the sick and dying are elderly. Somehow isolating only those people will solve the problem even though that's not even possible. (Old/infirm people still need to shop for food or interact with caregivers.) And that these lockdowns are idiocy. So you're alternative is to do nothing beyond isolating old/infirm people and assume it won't be that bad when it's all said and done?
Its the old and infirm that need to shut their lives down and isolate...not the rest of us.
Do you actually have an expert to quote who is saying this??
As far as selecting article you've been ignoring, I'll choose this
video even though it's a week old now. This kind of analysis is clearly why we see all this "hysteria" and government lockdowns. Do you agree with his basic analysis vis a vis the flu and everything else? If so, is your proposed solution still isolating the old/sick and business as usual on main street?
