Are you really so ignorant as to believe this? My granddaughter had this virus. She's 20 and in good health. She was taken to the hospital by ambulance because she was having dificulty breathing. Fortunately it was early in the cycle where she lives, and the hospital was not overwhelmed. Had it been a few weeks later, there's no guarantee at all that she would have survived.
I've read pages and pages of you talking about beng "rational" and telling us what people won't do, and that government should make plans with that in mind. Other than creating internment camps for old and vulnerable people (a spectacularly stupid or cruel idea that puts the most vulnerable people in close proximity to one another where they wil be even more vulnerable to transmission of the disease if isolation is not perfect—and not even you could be naieve enough to believe that isolation will be perfect) I can't recall any suggestion you've made that would serve any useful purpose at all.
I'm just going by reports out of Italy, specifically the 99% of those who succumb to the disease had other issues or are elderly. From a statistical point of view, the less than 1% being healthy and young are outliers.
Over 99% of coronavirus patients in Italy who died had other health problemsI am still going to look at this logically and from a statistical point of view. With the sole exception of my wife contracting and succumbing to this, my response is not going to be emotional. As I noted before, I dont believe in allowing emotions to dictate thought when looking at a problem, nor does it help in anyway.
Sorry for your granddaughter; good to hear she recovered.
Furthermore, the suggestion of isolating those at risk was not mine, I merely thought it could be a good idea. On top of that, no where did I suggest it should be mandatory. Second, I also believed I mentioned increasing services for those at risk, which could be (but I did not list) delivery of food and other essentials to their homes.
