[Coop]

Originally Posted by fraze

Death rate of corona is 1%. If everyone got infected with no intervention, 1% of the 330million people in America is 3.3 million deaths. The approach you're advocating is the same as condemning millions of people to death. It's genocide by apathy.

"If everyone got infected with no intervention" is the premise you're using, and I'd argue that premise would literally never happen. For multiple reasons, the main two being:

1- Not every single person will catch it.
2- There WILL be intervention

So this is a moot theory.

Originally Posted by fraze

We're at almost 300k deaths now, but it would have been a much higher number without the public health interventions. More people would have caught the virus and more people would have died.

This is by definition opinion. "Woulda coulda shoulda". All THEORY. Even if you argue it's not, I'd just use the same logic and argue the deaths due to financial hardship/suicide/depression spurred on by lockdowns and shutdowns would change as well, arguably balancing out the deaths.

Originally Posted by fraze

You can't only keep elderly people at home because people who aren't at risk are still carriers. You can't isolate at risks populations 100% because they generally need care. You would also need to isolate caretakers. But if caretakers are mixing with general population with widespread community infections, you're going to end up killing the elderly anyway.

Again, with this VERY logic, locking down EVERYONE AND EVERYTHING also has the same issues as locking down just a portion of the population. I'd argue locking down everyone causes MORE ISSUES than locking down a few. You can't in one breath say "LOCK DOWN EVERYTHING AND STAY HOME" and then when someone says, "Well, why just the people at risk stay home?" ... your rebuttal cant be "WELL YOU CANT LOCK THEM DOWN 100% BECAUSE _____". The contradiction doesn't reveal itself to you?

Originally Posted by fraze

Also, deaths and health complications AREN'T limited to the elderly. A lot of it is luck of the draw. If you get a bad case you can die or have permanent disability even if you're young and considered "healthy".

And if I go driving, I can get hit by a car, or struck by lightning, or have a heart attack etc... All more likely scenarios than catching covid and dying from it. Should I stop driving and going outside because of a fear of death, which can happen at any moment for any reason?

Originally Posted by fraze

Not to mention hospital capacity. We're maxed out now with the interventions that have been put in place. When you run out of hospital capacity completely death rates will go up across the board for covid/non-covid because you can no longer keep up with treating preventable disease.

This is pure propaganda. There may be some hospitals that are at capacity, but I doubt it's the majority, and it certainly isnt ALL. I literally have contacted every doctor/medical professional I know in my circles and inquired about this and more, and saw my local hospital with my own eyes and asked further.

Originally Posted by fraze

The pandemic will end when we get to population immunity. This can either happen by getting exposed to the virus, getting antibodies from blood plasma, or getting one of the vaccines. Depending on what mix of those options we end up with more/fewer people will die, and it will end sooner/later. All of this stuff is scientifically predictable at this point.

Which is exactly why there are thousands of doctors across the world that agree that LOCKING DOWN is the opposite of what we need to do if herd immunity is the goal. Some argue we've already likely reached that point or are already close.

Originally Posted by fraze

Also for the record, I'm not blindly pro-vaccine or pro-lockdown. I'm personally hesitant to take a vaccine where there have been no studies of long term side effects. Also only think lockdowns are needed in places where hospital capacity is an issue. Long term you have to keep the economy going or a lot more people will die from poverty and starvation. But I'm also not going to ignore the fact that some level of intervention needs to be taken to prevent the worse case of deaths.

Would you agree that in whichever case, the action that causes LEAST deaths should likely be the course of action?

Originally Posted by fraze

Masks and masks mandates are proven effective at lowering spread and keeping deaths down. The vaccine will slow down the community spread for the people who are willing to take it. It will be a while before any of us have access to it anyway. We only ordered 50million doses through Feb, so that's only 25million people getting the vaccine (roughly 1 of 13 Americans)

A rushed vaccine is not in the public's best interest. Indemnifying all vaccine manufacturers against all liability is also not in the public's best interest. And I'd be interested in seeing and reading the studies of "masks and mask mandates being PROVEN to lower the spread and keep deaths down". Do you even know how they formulate these studies? Who conducts them and who funds them? What areas of the country/world they specify? How they measure their metrics? All the variables they consider? Or did you just see a headline or hear it on the news?