Just throwing this out there for perspective.

If I worked with 100 other employees and 2 of them died from the virus that would make the minimum death rate of the virus at my employer 2%. I say minimum because the death rate of the virus is based on those that had the virus. So a 2% death rate assumes all have been tested and all have the virus. It's the lowest percentage possible. As you test and find out some have not had the virus your death rates will go up (the death rate denominator goes down while the numerator remains constant). Its a small number so the stats will not apply exactly, and it doesn't consider with or without precautions. Precautions do work but are not perfect.

100 people, 2 dead.... no big deal. Others extremely sick... meh they will get over it. Expand that to millions of people and you have an issue.

If you are lucky enough to be asymptomatic and know other asymptomatic folks (the majority will be) its easy to minimize things and it becomes more theory than reality. If you go with that and are not careful there is a chance you will kill people. Meh. We all make our own decisions. Those folks should have stayed away from me.

All of this is about the virus. I think we can be careful and open things up and do need to weigh risk. But creating a false narrative to do so isn't the right way to go. Recognize it for what it is, weigh risk and make decisions. Don't artificially minimize the risk to make the decision you would like to see,

teedubbya wrote:

Well then you must have read it several times.

tailgater wrote:

Unless you're employing a workforce of senior citizens, your numbers are skewed.

tailgater wrote:

I should go get tested...

I think I got it back in early-mid December then finally kicked its ass ... in January... It was really really BAD...

How much $$$ was the test?

Do you need a Dr. Referral or perscription to get one?

Mr. Jones wrote:

If the virus is as contagious as claimed, why wouldn't they be closer to herd immunity?
We shelter ourselves away because we're told we shouldn't contract it.
They have nightly golden shower contests.
You'd think more people would get the virus and if they don't die then they'd be part of the cool herd.

tailgater wrote:

The point of reaching herd immunity is currently projected to be November 4

HockeyDad wrote:

Good questions. They say the test as to whether you have Covid19 is free and some have requirements to get that test.
Not sure about the antibody test and again, thanks to no adequate Federal leadership, requirements may vary.

tonygraz wrote:

yup...some perspective...

in my family, BIL is a retired pharmacist, my nephew is an ER doc, niece's hubby is a radiologist, sister in law is a nursing administrator and wife's best friend is an RN...all have studied long and hard in field of medicine and pathogens...


every single one say this is more serious than the flu, tell me to keep my azz at home...without effective meds and other treatments, and until vaccines - hopefully...non-contact is the best defense

delta1 wrote:

The point of reaching herd immunity is currently projected to be November 4

HockeyDad wrote:

Dude I'd vote for you over our current choices in a heart beat. Continue with the by far the worst President since WWII or roll the dice with someone I think may be just as senile as the current guy.

I miss GWB, Bammy and Peanut head. The burnt crap on the bottom just became a roux.

teedubbya wrote:

Maybe they just don’t want to see you and are taking advantage of the crisis. Never let a good crisis go to waste. Just saying....

HockeyDad wrote:

So the death rate is not bring slowed. That is a constant. What is being slowed is the rate of exposure. This in turn slows the rate of death. I think TW'S 2% is high IMHO. It seems like the indicators are pointing to between 1% and .5%.

Also, it seems some of you need to brush up on herd immunity. It doesn't work the way you are assuming it does.

Speyside wrote:

if some of you got sick in December, does that raise questions about the oranges of the virus?

delta1 wrote:

So the death rate is not bring slowed. That is a constant. What is being slowed is the rate of exposure. This in turn slows the rate of death. I think TW'S 2% is high IMHO. It seems like the indicators are pointing to between 1% and .5%.

Also, it seems some of you need to brush up on herd immunity. It doesn't work the way you are assuming it does.

Speyside wrote: