The US is averaging more confirmed new cases per day now than it has at any prior time, and the rate is going up. Here's a graph [1].
[1] http://91-divoc.com/pages/covid-visualization/?chart=countri...
In general, therapeutics are better than they were at the start. Fewer infected people need ventilators and fewer of them are dying. I don't know what the details are, but apparently doctors are learning what works and what doesn't.
Edit: I'm unsure why OP was downvoted. The question is legitimate and deserves an answer.
I'm split on such issues. On one hand, it's tiring to keep putting out fires. On the other hand, I feel the answer one gets depends too heavily on what "side" of the Internet the search algorithm placed you, so it's not only OP's fault that he didn't get the right answer yet.
With respect, people should be looking at facts and coming to their own answers/conclusions. That strategy is more immune (sorry) from search-algorithm errors.
These numbers partly reflect increasingly delayed retirement, although those careers are extreme cases - 25% of americans over 65 still work. I don't believe it would be possible to meaningfully protect even just the group of over 65s, because it would require massive social spending and organization in a way that half the country would simply not accept. Aside from their participation in the paid workforce (presumably doing things that someone in the general population needs, at some point), many families would lose informal childcare. These protected old people would need access to doctors and nurses and hospitals, all filled with the infected younger people (or could we dedicate entire hospitals to them, staffed by elderly medical professionals? Which ones?) They would need to live for free if not able to work, or have their income replaced. They would need to find a place to live somewhere besides the family home, if it was currently shared with younger family. Etc...basically I believe that an attempt to "just protect the vulnerable groups" would fail to protect those groups, and would cause similar chaos among the general population.
(Edit: these are all US numbers. I would be fascinated to see equivalents from other countries - I know that the frequency of intergenerational living varies greatly, for instance, as well as retirement ages)
Second, there isn't really a non-vulnerable population. The risk of dying if you're relatively young is low, but it's not zero.
Third, the death statistics don't really cover the long-haulers; there are people who have serious complications for months at least. Damage to heart, lungs, and neurological problems may be permanent.
Fourth, if you overwhelm the capacity of the local health care system to care for sick people, a lot more of them are likely to die or suffer worse complications.
Fifth, we don't know how long immunity lasts. Having a cycle where all the healthy people get Covid-19 once a year isn't sustainable.
Sixth, if it some point one were to decide (like Sweden did) that herd immunity is a bad idea, your country is now in a much worse position to try to eradicate the virus by social distancing and masks. For instance, the United States reduced new infections by about a half between mid July to mid September; that's about two months. If that's the best we can do, it means that every time we increase the number of cases 2x (like we've just about managed to do in October), it means we've added 2 more months at least until the pandemic is over, if herd immunity doesn't work and a vaccine isn't forthcoming.
The chance of dying doesn’t have to be zero to be a non-vulnerable population. The odds of dying if you’re less than 60 or don’t have a comorbidity is less than 0.03% (and that number avalanches downward the younger you are).
Given that the general random chance of dying hovers around that number, the increased chance of dying from covid for the non-vulnerable groups is statistically insignificant.
Nearly nothing has a zero chance of happening but pragmatically it’s virtually impossible that a non-vulnerable person would die from it.
EDIT: This thread is already getting brigaded by people who apparently think of this as a hoax or some kind of conspiracy so I'm going to leave and take my citations and facts from the article with me.
[0]: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/covid-19-may-have-infecte...
[1]: https://rt.live (US-centric)
The jury is very, very much out on that. The 70% number bandied about is extremely naively calculated, it assumes 0 pre-existing resistance or immunity (Which we now know exists), and it assumes all humans are homogenous sphere-shaped balls floating around in a gaseous society, which is also obviously not true.
There are countless reports and studies on transmission among children in school settings, and they pretty much unilaterally state that there's very little spread happening there, contrary to everyone's "gut feeling" about kids being snot-nosed petri dishes.
No, the article explicitly says "Estimates of the threshold for SARS-CoV-2 range from 10% to 70% or even more", and then it sort of handwaves away any studies showing lower numbers, and highlights the ones showing the higher numbers.
That is pretty much the definition of the jury being out on the matter.
No we don't. You've misunderstood whatever you've read.
> and they pretty much unilaterally state that there's very little spread happening there
This is untrue. Just today: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/coronavirus-r-rat...
(But there are many others showing that schools increase spread of covid).
Same reason as "Summer of the Shark". (When US media exhaustively covered shark attacks, during a year when shark attacks were a little below average.) It's news, so there's a lot of coverage, which makes it news.
A dumb decision that could have been made outside of COVID times for any number of reasons.
Far more scandalous (and getting more media coverage) is the fact that Victorian football teams had to relocate to Queensland to continue their training.
4 babies with cardiac problems have died in Adelaide, but it appears to have been a decision in SA not to send them to the pediatric cardiac unit in Melbourne (their normal referral practice) or anywhere else - victoria says they weren't asked and would not have rejected them. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-10-22/unanswered-questions-...
The mother lives in NSW close to the QLD border and wanted to go a Brisbane hospital (Brisbane = capital of QLD) for the birth, but flew to Sydney instead to avoid 14 days of hotel quarantine (probably at their expense) in QLD.
I'm sure the level of care was equally good in both hospitals. The outcome may have been the same regardless.
In the U.S. we just surpassed our record of new infections per day set back in July, with an upward slope that's going to continue to who knows where.
There are some places that have Covid-19 reasonably under control, but on average we're in the worst of it right now as far as we know. (The peak in spring might possibly have been worse, we just didn't have adequate testing at the time to know for sure. But right now we know cases are on the rise, and it's not just large population centers but rural areas too.)
That's a myth. Even "long" Covid only lasts for a few months.
Also, disability doesn't have to be permanent. Broke your leg and need a wheelchair? You're still disabled for the duration you need the wheelchair.
ARDS recovery caused by COVID can take months.
How many?
> Also, disability doesn't have to be permanent. Broke your leg and need a wheelchair? You're still disabled for the duration you need the wheelchair.
Why are you arguing semantics instead of writing something constructive? Yes, technically you are disabled if you have "a physical or mental condition that limits [your] movements, senses, or activities". That obviously happens to everyone who gets sick.