Oh I read your sentence. I didn't ignore it. I just don't see how one thing 'logically' follows another, let alone allows for a 'deduction'. I mean, I can see y

Oh I read your sentence. I didn't ignore it. I just don't see how one thing 'logically' follows another, let alone allows for a 'deduction'. I mean, I can see your sentence is a point that could be supportive of your argument. But to connect them like your doing, implying proof, is to make many assumptions which I don't see as necessarily true. For me you are not fulfilling the burden of proof that your assertion requires. Saying this will have a near 100% infection rate is an extraordinary claim, since I've not known of any single deadly virus that has achieve that. I won't continue since more fundamentally, I think you and I have a very, very different definition for what 'logic' and 'deduction' mean. To me these words, like the word ironic, have a very narrow definition that many people don't seem to conform to. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I do wish you the best and think we can all agree that we hope the new virus has the smallest possible toll on humanity. :)