Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, the statistics are starting to show that if you're young and healthy, this is not much worse than the flu in terms of outcome. The hospitalization rate is also much lower than was reported earlier. Even just counting positive and confirmed test cases, this data is painting a pretty clear picture. Here's the data out of new york city. You can see the chart showing hospitalizations and deaths per age. The trend i…
Well, spoiler alert, not everyone is young and healthy. In fact, the majority of Americans have at least one comorbidity for coronavirus. > Covid for new york city has a death rate of about 75 per 100k. So far. We're still experiencing hundreds of deaths per day in the city, significantly more than all other causes combined. Your analysis is vastly premature.
Even if it's 150 per 100k, or even if it's 500 or 1000 per 100,000, is that too much? We need to establish an upper bound for the number of deaths we're willing to tolerate. It cannot be "zero". There is a balance between acceptable mortality and economic consequence that I fear few people are willing to discuss. The medical establishment's goal is to save as many lives as possible, and due to that strategy, they will go to any length to make that happen. I do not once see a medical professional saying "well we can't save all these lives because it would be too expensive". The concession seems to only go one direction: The economy must suffer at any and all cost to minimise mortality as far as possible.
So again, what is an acceptable mortality rate? 2%, 5%? A realistic upper bound that's a fair trade off between economic collapse and mortality rate needs to be decided.