4 ms·

I can't do that because you literally excluded any evidence that did not make it the number one cause of death. You're not arguing in good faith, so I'll leave

• mech987 4y ago
  I think the proper argument to be made here is comparing its mortality for this age group to that of the flu and other causes. Car accidents or homicide are other interesting ones. Liver disease kills more 35-44 year olds according to the amac.us source. https://freopp.org/comparing-the-risk-of-death-from-covid-19-vs-influenza-by-age-d33a1c76c198 https://freopp.org/comparing-the-risk-of-death-from-covid-19... https://amac.us/estimating-the-risk-of-death-from-covid-19-vs-influenza-or-pneumonia-by-age/ https://amac.us/estimating-the-risk-of-death-from-covid-19-v...
• kcplate 4y ago
  I’m arguing that this premise is false: >> Covid has affected and killed enough "younger" people - by which I mean folks younger than 40 Which as a editorial on this comment from the commenter above them: >>> A properly functioning society does not sacrifice the future of its young to protect the old. If you don’t like how I framed the question, perhaps do this instead—provide the statistics that tell us where Covid sits on the danger and mortality scale for healthy people under 40. Then tell us why you think that rate of danger warrant those “protective” measures that adversely affected the young. I don’t think Covid was a threat that warranted the sacrifice of the young to protect the old and I think the stats prove that out.