3 ms·

That's probably true, so maybe the 2% death rate is too high, again, let's assume that the OP's point of 0.5% is accurate. As I said, that still implies that i

That's probably true, so maybe the 2% death rate is too high, again, let's assume that the OP's point of 0.5% is accurate. As I said, that still implies that if everyone in the United States got it, 1.5 million of them would die (320,000,000 * .005). That's a lot of people. If a government did nothing to prevent a terrorist attack that killed 1.5 million people, most people would (rightly) be pretty upset. EDIT: Also, forgot to mention, it's totally disingenuous to only look at "deaths". We do not fully know the long term health effects, but as I stated there's potential neurological effects, potential risks of type 1 diabetes, and people permanently losing smell.

lax4ever 6y ago
While I can appreciate where you are coming from, countering a terrorist attack typically has something that we don't have with COVID and that is information. The world was introduced and expected to react to this disease without any sort of "tactical" knowledge. Even if you include the other four variants of coronavirus, the availability of information can still be considered sorely lacking. Discounting government-provided information, even medical sources had a harder time providing a consensus on how the disease was transmitted during the first few months. That the larger questions like why we have such a large population that appears to be asymptomatic remains unanswered while we are still being pushed to "one-size-fits-all" remedy (and a remedy that appears to only be there to debase the severity of symptoms) doesn't help. Unfortunately, we need information, and information is going to take time. The long term arguments for health side effects are on both sides of the coin here.