It does not change the fact that there are other viruses which are far more deadly than SARS-CV2.
Should we go into full lockdown everytime there's an outbreak ? This is a very legitimate question to ask.
Should we go into full lockdown everytime there's an outbreak ? This is a very legitimate question to ask.
SARS-CV2 may not have the % kill rate of SARS-CV1, or other nasties like Ebola, etc, but it has potential to kill a LOT of people due to it's specific nature:
- Many infected people are asymptomatic, so spread it unknowingly
- It has a fairly long incubation period, so even those that will show symptoms (allowing them to be isolated) don't initially
- Symptoms may be mild and confused with those of other diseases (such as flu!), resulting in failure to diagnose, hence allowing spread
- The percentage death rate appears nothing to be complacent about. The Princess Diamond "experiment" (with 100% testing) indicates about a 1% death rate (10x that of flu), while in Italy it's running at about 10% of detected cases.
- This is a novel virus to which we have no immunity. If it's still around next year things may be better (and better yet if we have a vaccine), but this year it'll be bad if not managed
Apparently what caused Trump to eventually take this seriously was an Imperial College, UK report indicating that "do nothing" would result in a couple of million deaths in USA.
Of course it's a legitimate question to ask if the cure is worse than the disease, but it's both politically and morally impossible not to act when you know you could save millions of lives.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/coronavirus-us-uk...