I think that's a misleading number, because it requires too many assumptions. The death rate is dependent on many factors, access to medical facilities, adequate medical staff, availability of PPE, availability of therapeutic treatments, etc. As the infection rate goes up, the availability of all those other resources goes down. As resources go down, the death rate goes up. The death rate is only 99.9% per the population, if the infection stays down.

This is born out in several places... El Paso, TX, North Dakota, South Dakota, and more. These were places that had managed to avoid the brunt of the disease and they are getting hit hard now.

The other consideration is that we don't know what the long-term effects are - @Repeat mentioned that the aftermath was worse than the disease. There is a lot of information coming out about CoVid being a vascular disease that could effect more than just the lungs. People are reporting many long-term symptoms that are being attributed to CoVid. I think the information is still pretty preliminary, but it's not like we know that much about it. From what I can tell is that the virus may affect different people in different ways. It has me concerned that so-called asymptomatic people might be affected in other parts of their body and not realize it yet. I hope that's not the case and don't really think it's likely, but it's possible.

You can probably tell that I have a habit of way overthinking things....

True, however but there has been almost nowhere in the US that hospital bed and equipment shortages actually occurred (Rampart hospital in NY is possibly the exception). And the the difference btn March and November is the treatment know how and availability of therapeutics. Still wise to wash, mask, but covid is less lethal than the flu if you are under 50. Places that avoided the first wave are seeing the next. The whole point was/is to flatten the curve and keep hospitals from being over run. This virus is contagious, ppl will get it, but locking down has far worse consequences than covid for the vast majority.

@KmFree, you just advanced to level 1!

I am unaware of numbers of flu deaths by age. According to the CDC website, flu deaths are basically an educated guess. They look at excess deaths that fall outside of known causes and whatever is left over is likely the flu. I have not seen flu death breakdowns by age, but I will have to look for them now.

Got to go. Work comes too early.

There is another concern... In 1918, the first wave was bad, but not that deadly. People would get very sick, but most recovered. Things moved slower back then, but by the time the disease worked its way around the planet and made it back to the US, it had mutated into a much more deadly strain. The more infections increase the chances of more mutations.

I played plague inc too

Plague inc?

lol

It's a game

Became super popular after covid was released

You basically have a pet virus

And your goal is to infect the world and kill everyone

I remember Oregon Trail... Learned I never wanted to get dysentery.

Very ... Educational.

We didn't have a lot of choices back them.

then

How is the data analysis going?

Just reread this... How morbid... gallows humor?

How old are you lol

99% of games are about killing people

But yea I guess it is slightly humorous

Buy the game it's fun

Playing a game where the goal is to infect the world during a pandemic is pretty morbid.

I'll definitely buy it.

Er maybe I didn't explain it well

It's not "during" a pandemic

You _are_ the pandemic

Or started it

I meant that you said it became popular during the pandemic.

Ah now I understand

Yes, it became popular during the pandemic

@realz, you just advanced to level 14!

I think china banned it or something

That's when I heard about it lol

I guess it is slightly morbid

And gallows humor

See... I'm not an old fuddy duddy that's full of malarkey.