That statement is wrong at every level. Case mortality rates for COVID-19 are around 3.4% globally - that is it kills about one in thirty of the people it infects. 'Flu is a tiny fraction of that. Both are - of course - more likely to take elderly and immunocompromised people, but COVID is vastly more dangerous. (The USA - because the global numbers include countries with poor healthcare - are around a 2.7% death rate - but that's still one in 37.)OrgasmAlley wrote:COVID kills at about 1/5th the rate of the seasonal flu for those under 19... so, for example, closing schools because thousands of children will die (a leftist position here in the states) is false
That you're seeing low COVID deaths is because of the restrictions, social distancing et c. Every year, a pretty significant proportion of the population gets some strain of 'flu; so far, even in the plague-ridden USA, the infection rate is only about 2.5% (one in 20) of the population, compared to around 15% (or more than 1 in 7, and that's a pretty loose number, because most 'flu cases go unreported, whereas the COVID numbers are all confirmed by tests.)
The other thing that skews the numbers is that for the most part people who die of 'flu don't usually present with 'flu - they're usually already seriously sick or frail, and 'flu is just what finally carries them off. While there's a lot of that with COVID too, you're seeing a pretty high proportion of deaths from people for whom the reason they presented was because of a fresh COVID infection.
For what it's worth, here in NZ, presentations for 'flu went to basically zip. We stomped on COVID and took the winter 'flu season out with it. (Colds, sadly, are here to stay.)
Lockdowns get you under control when it's out of control. That countries relax and get complacent is hardly the fault of the lockdowns.We clearly see that most countries that performed a heavy-handed style lockdown initially experience a very strong "second wave" -- actually their first wave -- as they attempt to regain a bit of freedom. While it's certainly a better time, given the advanced understanding of the COVID, they've paid a mighty cost for that. Locking down on a country-wide basis again is an expensive gamble.
Seriously though, you blather on about "leftist" responses, but here the government & public service gamed out the economic cost of not getting on top of the infection quickly and came to the conclusion that while the result was bad from a short, sharp lockdown, living with with the restrictions required to keep the health system from collapsing would be significantly worse - and that's without even considering the human cost. We did a month of lockdown, followed by a couple more weeks of semi-lockdown, and another month of social distancing before a near-complete opening up. There were some restrictions in August due to a case cluster, but back to fully open after a few weeks.
You talk about 'freedom",while our "leftist" response leaves us actually free, both from restrictions and from the virus itself.
The trouble with lockdowns elsewhere is that in every single case they've been half-arsed - infections rates dropped so governments (even "leftist" ones) lost their nerve and relaxed restrictions. But since the infection was not actually under control, infections accelerated again. Here, restrictions were lifted only when the infection was fully contained - that is, every single case was either recovered, dead, or safely quarantined. That - and getting your control measures going early - is how you beat this thing.
