Did read the article you linked?

"Most people who get the flu won't need a sick bed or a respirator." -Snoopy.

But upto 20% of those infected with it, do. (as I understand it)

if 70% of the entire population gets it (if we just go back to work as you suggest), and 20% of those people need a sickbed/ventilator..... while thats not "most", its JUST 20%, its a f*** huge load of people.  328million people x 70% x 20% = (328x0.7x0.2) =  45,92 million people.

"Only people who needs it will be the elderly or people with weak immune system." -Snoopy.

^ this is a lie. 

You are ill informed most likely, truth is alot of people, even non-smokers or elderly/weak+immune systems get it, and can end up needing a sick bed or ventilator.

"I actually got the flu earlier this year and I just stayed home for about a week and I was fine just like most people." -Snoopy.

^ CoVid-19 is worse than any common flu.  

The fact that it kills 14 to 40+ times more people that get it, alone proves this point (death rates vary from nation to nation).
Getting Corona virus isnt like getting the flu, so you shouldnt compair your personal experiances with a flu, to getting corona.



"Also, most people who are dying are the elderly and infants who should stay home like I said before." -Snoopy.

If 70% of the population has it.... just staying home, to avoid it isnt easy.
You would have to have months of stockpiled food in each home. 
People need to go out and get foods, if so much of the population has it, that becomes so much more risky.
Same with haveing it bought out, its not without risk.

The more of the general population gets it (which your arugment is for) the more elderly will die.
Excuseing it with, they should have just stayed at home...  not very "kind" to the elderly.

Hopefully one day, you also live to old age, and wont have to get screwed over by a younger person with a viewpoint like yours right now.


"and infants" -Snoopy.

^ this is wrong as well.

Kids and even babys are usually able to get through it without much if any ill effects.
They deal with it much better than even someone in their 30s.
The issues lay with the 30-90 year olds that get this.

----------------

edit:

"a team of infectious disease experts calculates that the fatality rate in people who have symptoms of the disease caused by the new coronavirus is about 1.4%."

^ this is from the article you linked Snoopy.

Its a "optimistic" look at death rates, amoung those that show symptoms (20% of people infected).


328 million americans x (upto) 70% infected x 20% (show symptoms) x 1,4% (optimistic expectation of deaths) = ~650,000 Deaths


You saying "lets just go back to work instead", is atleast going to kill 650,000 americans or so (going by the article you linked).
Also this is with a optimistic view of death rates, and assumeing that everyone that needs a sick bed and care for, will get it.

Reality is that most wont if you spread the virus like this.
You could be looking at a few million deaths, if you dont combat its spread, by shutting down work places ect.

"lets just go back to work" means millions of people in america *could* die.

Here we go again, it's not comparable to the flu. Yes, people under 50 are less likely to die, people under 30 even less than that. People over 40 still have a 5% chance to end up in the hospital with serious symptoms. Some of those ending up in the hospital require the ICU and can spend a weeks on a ventilator under close observation, some needing an ecmo machine when the lungs can't absorb any oxygen anymore. Plus all those with serious symptoms end up with lung scar tissue effecting the rest of their lives.


Modern healthcare can keep these groups alive and get them through it to get recovered in a month (with lung scar tissue effecting the rest of their lives) To stay with the UK example, the UK has roughly 4000 ICU beds, 150K total hospital beds, most occupied for regular needs.

0 to 9 -> 3.8 million people, 70% infected 2.66 million, 2.6K in the hospital, 53 in ICU (50 dead)
10 to 19 -> 3.7 million people, 70% infected 2.59 million, 7.8K in the hospital, 388 in ICU (155 dead)
20 to 29 -> 4.4 million people, 70% infected 3.08 million, 37K in the hospital, 1800 in ICU (924 dead)
30 to 39 -> 4.6 million people, 70% infected 3.22 million, 103K in the hospital, 5150 in ICU (2570 dead)
40 to 49 -> 4.4 million people, 70% infected 3.08 million, 151K in the hospital, 9500 in ICU (4620 dead)
50 to 59 -> 4.7 million people, 70% infected 3.29 million, 336K in the hospital, 40940 in ICU (19714 dead)
60 to 69 -> 3.4 million people, 70% infected 2.38 million, 395K in the hospital, 108250 in ICU (52360 dead)

There's your kids and workforce. Quarantine everyone over 35 and take the 'minor' losses?
The other 30% gets infected eventually as well but any 70% as peak load is about the estimate when you let things run free.

Subtract the elderly, infants and people with prior conditions and the percentage is a lot less.  So healthy middle age people should be fine and go about their daily lives. However, let's stop the economy completely which affects 100% of the population and will lead to the great depression. You know, less food, medical supplies, suicide, lack of security, gangs, etc. 

^ thats "only" 80,400 deaths in the UK (if I did the maths right on your numbers).

*if* you had over 1million sick beds in hopsitals, and the staff, to take care of these people (with the virus).
*if* you had enough ventilators, to keep those that need it, on such.

I think if spread gets that crazy (70%) then these Infection Fatality Rates, go atleast up by a factor of 10 or something.

The "cynical" who are okay with such, might rationalise it with saying.... thats perphaps only 800,000 deaths out of a population of 66,44 million.
UK will go on, the world will keep spinning, who cares as long as I myself live.

Cuomo just mentioned testing data. NY has done more tuan 90k test, Washington stat3 more than 40, California nore than 23k and every other state less than 23k.

Yes, that's the big problem. There are far fewer free beds than the total capacity, without a ventilator when you need one, you are sure to die. Those being denied hospital care are also far more at risk of not surviving. Without increasing the ICU capacity (and assuming you can use all 4000 beds for covid 19) your death toll already rises 162K for those under 70. Then you have nearly 900K that need hospital care but can't get it even if you can free up all hospital beds or double capacity short term.

The UK government didn't quickly abandon their "quarantine 70+" plan for nothing.

This all assuming you can keep the 70+ safely out of the way.

70 to 79 2.8 million people, 70% infected 1.96 million, 476K in hospital, 206K in ICU (100K dead)
88 to 99 1.5 million people, 70% infected 1.05 million, 287K in hospital, 203K in ICU (98K dead)

"Subtract the elderly, infants and people with prior conditions and the percentage is a lot less."

^ wrong.

the 19% here, is refering to people that get the infection.
Virologists think perphaps upwards of 70% of a population can get it.

Out of 100 that get this, 19% are hospitalised.
And upto 70% of a population can get it.


"So healthy middle age people should be fine and go about their daily lives."

^ this will prolong the periode the elderly will have to stay home at lock down.
And it will continue to spread, until ~70% of the population has it.

Alot of elderly that wouldnt need to get sick, will.
They will take some unnessary risk, or get it from just getting foods ect.
Its alot more risky (for the risk groups) than just haveing everyone quarantined, and stopping spreads early.

"However, let's stop the economy completely which affects 100% of the population and will lead to the great depression. "

The alternative, is to hire people to go pick up corpses instead.
You want a job picking up the dead? your plan could lead to there being a few million more.

Its a mixed bag for me. He waited to last Friday to authorize districts to close school and his shutdown of the state goes into effect Sunday. And he closed all state universities a week after private ones. He also signed a law that made it that De Blasio couldn't lock down the city. But he's done great woth testing and getting resources from the federal government. 

Watched a few of his public announcements + questionaries thingies.... hes cool & collected, seems to know basically everything or askes one of his people that should know numbers and stuff. Its impressive and he makes good arguements for why he does things the way he does.

Like you said, alot of transparency and honesty there. You can tell he actually cares for the people he serves.


Unlike certain senators doing insider tradeing, while just ignore facts in public or lieing to them.
They didnt want to spook the stock markets, before they could sell their own stock, so they didnt say anything to the public.
Meanwhile their scaried sh*tless and makeing sure they themselves get out ahead of this.

Cuomo was like "if anyone is angry with their representatives doing x,y,z, know that it was me that told them to do so ect"
You can all blame me, if it turns out I was just over reacting.  Hes shouldering blame, republicans might face for doing x,y,z.

Wrong? Did you not see the graph where the vast majority of hospitalization and deaths are elders?

Picking up dead? We are going to do that regardless. Sorry, but we are going to pick up dead people no matter what the case is .  We can't stop working or else there will be no food, medecine supplies, ect which affects 100% Sorry, we have to play the percentage and not on feelings or fear.