>>11642702Ok I'll be specific with you.
Let us accept the following assumptions as a given (even though I do not believe them to be so):
(1) Deaths reported can solely be attributed to COVID-19, and NOT one or more serious late stage illnesses. Essentially, COVID deaths are being held to the same reporting measures relative non-pandemic reporting of the flu and other common viruses.
(2) The common RNA tests are accurate and specific at determining presence of SARS-COV2
(3) Monetary benefit provided by reporting ventilation and COVID deaths/cases has not had any impact of reporting of COVID deaths
If we accept these very tenuous "givens", we still have to consider the numbers we have relating to the infection to fatality ratio. Most credible and up to date evidence suggests the prevalence of infection is significantly higher than what is suggested by swab testing. The fatality rate for this suggest a range between 0.1%-0.8%.
Further, even high range death rates (~0.8% range) appear to only be prevalent in highly dense, polluted urban centres.
If you take away deaths where serious co-morbid illnesses, advanced age, or other serious undiagnosed pathologies are present, it is likely the death rate is on par with a bad influenza strain.
Therefore, the vast, vast majority of the population (15-65) are at at no significant risk of death or permanent organ injury.
But let's imagine that they are (which is what we seem to be doing). What this means that as a society, we have made a collective decision to destroy our economy in the futile attempt to slow the spread of a disease which is (even according to doomer estimates) highly unlikely to kill you. The economic fallout will likely have more adverse health impacts long term than if we continued business as usual and let the virus go through unimpeded.
