4 ms·

I totally agree, in case someone brings up Italy and their current number of deaths to Corona - this article describes deaths to the common flu from 2013 throug

I totally agree, in case someone brings up Italy and their current number of deaths to Corona - this article describes deaths to the common flu from 2013 through 2017, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1201971219303285 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S120197121.... The numbers look like this: Season - Deaths: 2013/14 - 7,027 2014/15 - 20,259 2015/16 - 15,801 2016/17 - 24,981 What makes Corona virus trigger lockdowns and panic is that the current 3,400 deaths has happened during a short timespan. But the total number of deaths is still a factor 7 less than the 2016/17 flu season, which was not covered nearly as extensive as the current Corona virus. So while every death is tragic, the common flu is still a worse threat to the elderly and that is even though a vaccine is produced every year.

whb07 7y ago
It has been over 3 months. We are going to look back and realize this disease isn't that deadly. The places that had excessive deaths like Italy will turn out to have been poorly managed, equipped, and staffed. Not to mention other things like majority of cases being 70+ yo with 3+ diseases.
- frosted-flakes 7y ago
  But how will you know that the extreme measures weren't warranted, if they're successful? The world's leaders are stuck between a rock and a hard place here: do nothing, and be known as the leader who didn't act and caused the deaths of thousands or millions. Act with appropriately extreme measures and prevent as many deaths, and everyone will think the measures weren't warranted because the measures were successful.
  - whb07 7y ago
    Because you’ll see other countries who didn’t and they aren’t dead. Not only that, is that at what point, is current and future generations well being worth to save the population that’s largely impacted by this? Meaning, it’s perverse to spend more resources on the elderly as opposed to the youth. This just dials up the perversion to an extreme.
    - sharken 7y ago
      What i don't get is that these rational thoughts backed up by hard facts that says Italy lost 60.000 people(!) over a three year period to the common flu, are being overheard/ignored in place of a response that threaten to throw organized countries into economic chaos.

whb07 7y ago

It has been over 3 months. We are going to look back and realize this disease isn't that deadly. The places that had excessive deaths like Italy will turn out to have been poorly managed, equipped, and staffed. Not to mention other things like majority of cases being 70+ yo with 3+ diseases.

frosted-flakes 7y ago
But how will you know that the extreme measures weren't warranted, if they're successful? The world's leaders are stuck between a rock and a hard place here: do nothing, and be known as the leader who didn't act and caused the deaths of thousands or millions. Act with appropriately extreme measures and prevent as many deaths, and everyone will think the measures weren't warranted because the measures were successful.
- whb07 7y ago
  Because you’ll see other countries who didn’t and they aren’t dead. Not only that, is that at what point, is current and future generations well being worth to save the population that’s largely impacted by this? Meaning, it’s perverse to spend more resources on the elderly as opposed to the youth. This just dials up the perversion to an extreme.
  - sharken 7y ago
    What i don't get is that these rational thoughts backed up by hard facts that says Italy lost 60.000 people(!) over a three year period to the common flu, are being overheard/ignored in place of a response that threaten to throw organized countries into economic chaos.