Cornflakes said:
I know I have been a bit of an alarmist on the topic so far, but I'd welcome any contradictory argument with valid data and I am open to being persuaded to a brighter outlook.
As of now, we have 706 deaths over 53740 confirmed cases. Which is a 1.3% mortality ratio. What if, we have only 10% coverage on testing and another 90% (~500k) souls are just carrying Corona (virus, they can drink any beer they like) and partying on the beaches? Never tested, never counted, not showing any symptoms. The mortality rate drops 10x.
What if we have only 5% coverage on testing. The situation becomes even less dire and starts to look more like flu.
We already know that we have done a crappy job with testing. We just don't know how crappy.
In light of our capitalist greed mentality and presidential buffoonery, it is not too hard to imagine that we have 5% or less testing coverage.
The only real way we were going to prevent complete economic devastation was suppressing and containing the virus, by doing tracing, testing, and quarantine.
So, I don%u2019t think you are being an alarmist.
TI, especially without fortune and Irvinecommuter, leans heavily Rebublican/conservative/pro-trump.
On TI, I don%u2019t see much of any criticism of Trump missing the crucial window of opportunity to suppress and contain, when we had low number of COVID-19 case.
Instead, we are arguing and debating whether to sacrifice grandma for the Dow.