How about subtracting those mostly old and feeble folks who, if they did not get infected with covid-19, they were at very high risk of dying soon from flu or pneumonia or heart disease or advanced diabetes or stroke or falling in a bath tub, etc?
From what I am reading MOST victims of covid-19 are old and feeble and already have health issues.
China is full of smokers and they eat bats.
South Korea, Sinapore, Japan: It only affects Asians.
Iran: Iran's healthcare sucks.
Italy: Italy is full of old people and smokers.
United States: Only already sick people are dying.
“From what I am reading MOST victims of covid-19 are old and feeble and already have health issues.”
So let’s let ‘em die. It will solve the SS and Medicare solvency issue if we kill off the elderly at 34 times the rate they would have died anyway. What’s a few old people? Useless eaters. Right?
Your casual disregard for human life, even old, feeble, sick human life, is disturbing.
But at least you’re past denial and into the rationalizing stage.
From the limited metadata that has been made available, about half of those dying are over 70, or have another major underlying health condition. They’ve been stretching the definition of “elderly” to include those over 50.
The elderly are the major victims of the flu, and are why the flu and secondary infections from the flu typically kill about 0.04%-0.2% of those who become sick - typically around 0.1%. It’s already cooked into the numbers. At best, COVID-19 is about 20 times as deadly as the typical flu, with demographics that shift slightly more towards the middle. At worst, it’s a good bit beyond that.
Anyways, the main argument around here seems to amount to whether or not you should wash your hands regularly, work from home if you can, spend around $50 up front to buy things you would generally buy anyway, and try not to spread your snot on your neighbors.
My main argument is against bad math. Over time, it’s probably a more deadly contagion. Look at the Sanders campaign.