wamajama said: Enigmahood:

I sincerely apologize for calling you out on this, but, you chose to make at least two 'dismissive' comments about the pandemic.

First of all, by using the old 'more people die in car accidents every year' factoid. motor vehicle risks and accidents are known and calculable (but note: these were diminished by imposing seat belt laws, speed limits, and tougher penalties for DWIs, i.e., by preventive measures) ...and, we can choose to ride in or drive a car (we can't choose not to get a virus, only to minimize contact risks)...But the two phenomena are not comparable (factually or psychologically). All those care accidents do no happen in a contracted time span (of weeks or a few months).

In a pandemic contagion, the threat is invisible (until symptoms show) and can spread globally in a matter of days (as it did)....Everyone becomes at risk (and older folks [50 yo +] are most at risk from getting really sick and/or dying)...even young folks (a few have already died). But the lock downs and quarantines and stay at home orders are to slow (maybe eventually stop) the rapid spread of an invisible (real) threat that can be transmitted by perfectly healthy people (maybe like yourself) to more vulnerable segments of society.

It is like 'herd immunity' in that everyone (>95% or more) needs to get vaccinated in a given social grouping to generate the level of mass immunity needed to stop the illness. In the case of lock-downs (as the reckless idiots who went on Spring Break and attended Mardi Gras are now learning), if a small percentage don't follow the rules (washing hands, social distancing, sleeve sneezing, staying at home as much as possible, etc.), then they become vectors of the virus and potentially everyone (they come into contact with) is placed at risk.

If you can afford to get home delivery of food, great, you're lucky, most can't. Most people have to go out to the grocery store to get food at some point. But that risk of going out is minimized if everyone who does so follows the rules (social distancing, etc.). Point being: over-reacting (by over-protecting oneself) in a pandemic/contagion situation is NOT a bad thing (at worst, you overreacted trying to protect yourself or loved ones)...UNDER-reacting IS bad (it puts others at risk). ...someone you know might be the next victim of contagion.

Right now, the global fatality rate is around 3.4 % (with Italy being closer to 10% as of today), and, 5% of all infections require hospitalization -- enough to overwhelm hospitals and healthcare systems (and sicken front line workers) everywhere (and yes, deeply hurt an economy). Sure most people will survive (but over 50% of infected people 80+ yo will not). But everyone will know someone -- in some families, multiple persons have already died -- who has died or will die from corona virus (I already do) by the time this is 'over' . And then we can feel some security again...until the next, more lethal contagion, that will do even more damage -- especially if we 'minimize' (e.g., not reacting sufficiently to a real risk) the hard lessons we are learning now.

Using this forum as a platform to chastise people (even apologetically) for over-reacting in a pandemic situation -- or trying to 'minimize' the threat (which is indeed what you are doing, intentionally or not, by comparing an entirely different data sets) is irresponsible and not in ANY way helpful to mitigating the very real contagion risk to EVERYONE (we all know people over 50).

Again, sorry for this public post (I like you as a person/moderator) but I felt compelled to do so.