No I'm not saying f old people.
What I did there is share a fact. It's not saying kill all old people, it's not saying no-one under that age group can't die of it. It's not saying anything other than a fact.
Why you suddenly get a different meaning from that I have no idea.
You are saying that history will look back at this as no big deal because it’s only old people and people with underlying medical conditions who are dying (leaving aside the wider impact of the virus. We are just talking deaths alone).
The mortality rate is c1% for those who get it.
If everyone gets it once then that’s 700k people.
However that includes low risk people too. It’s the fallacy of composition. For those 50+ the mortality rate is 8% minimum.
Over a third of the population is over 50. Left to it’s own devices that’s a minimum of 2m deaths (based on the 8% mortality rate - it’s much higher for over 60s and 70s). Ignoring the fact that everyone would be getting it at the same time.
What do you think that would do to health services? To the care for other health issues? To the economy? To mental health?
You have continually downplayed how dangerous this is. Over the course of this pandemic you have continually made out it’s not as serious as it is.
The fact is, lockdown is required. Because without it, without some of the measures in place, the country would be brought to its knees. If left alone it would destroy the economy, the health service and I’d wager allowing 2m people to die would probably have a significant effect on mental health.
That’s ignoring the long term impact of this virus. It’s just focusing on mortality rate for the various different demographics.
But you know, it’s only old people and sick people so history won’t see it as a big deal.