# Do you think the Covid-19 virus is being blown out of proportion?

Relevance
• 4 months ago

yes.

for example: in the USA

just over 100,000 deaths have been attributed to covid-19

However, number of deaths this year to date from the ten leading causes is just over 2,000.000.

And, of those 100,000 covid deaths, roughly 90% would likely have died from those 10 leading causes, so the whole thing is hyped up.

Not that covid-19 is harmless or a hoax, but the increase is deaths due to covid-19 is statistically insignificant.

That said, one needs to look closely at why the medical systems would have been overloaded without the lockdowns and other stuff....

• Ludwig
Lv 7
4 months ago

No, my friend came round to my house today to view a 'covid' victim funeral on my computer.  A man she knew.    I have had the disease myself.  Stories I heard in hospital were very alarming.

• 4 months ago

It's like the money investing thing: Would you rather have \$100,000 or start with a penny and double your money every day for 30 days?

On day 10, you'd have \$10 and could say, "screw this, I'm never making enough money this way to get rich".  On day 20, you could be like, "I only made \$20,000, I should have taken the \$100 Gs."  You'd be stupid if you did either of those things.  Day 29 comes around, you have more than \$5 million, day 30 hits, you've made \$10,737,418.23.  Funny thing math.

What's that have to do with COVID-19 and whether things are being blown out of proportion?  Take a look for yourself at the second link I'm posting below - you can see how quickly the US was doubling its rate of infections or deaths attributed to COVID-19 and you can extrapolate for yourself and see why medical researchers were alarmed.  If you were like "no problem, overreaction, 3,000 people dead, that's nothing", but then in a few days, 6,000 people were dead, a few more days 12,000, then an week and 24,000, another week, 48k, then you hit 100k at some point in time, you can't look at that trend and be like, "eh, don't need to do anything about it."

You can argue "well, compared to X, 100k people dead in a population of 320M isn't even a percent," but then you're kind of ignoring the fact that a miracle cure or fullproof vaccine isn't imminent and that if you're looking at the trend, we're nowhere close to stopping at 100k deaths.

Of course, you do dramatic things - closing down large social gatherings, many workplaces, social distancing, masks, quarantines, extensive testing - those will all help, some a little, some a lot.  At the beginning of April, the US was doubling cases every *three* days, now it's doubling somewhere around 33 days or so.  We hit 50k dead on April 28th, we hit 100k dead on May 27th.  At the current rate, we'd hit 200k dead around the beginning of July, 400k by early September.  Hopefully, our rate continues to improve.  In some places the doubling rate is... it doesn't exist, because there haven't been new cases in weeks.  If we can get to that point, we're doing great.

Is it overkill for *some* places - is it "being blown out of proportion?"  Certainly.

Is it foolhardy to look at the numbers, understand how transmission occurs, and completely open up whole states and expect things to continue to get better instead of making the problem dramatically worse?  Without a doubt.  Can you look at the entire country with cases in every state, with high density areas hardest hit at first, and rural areas featuring the most rapid increases in rates of people coming down with cases and dying now, and make any blanket statement about there being an overreaction on a national scale?  I would argue no.

What about the people that argue that "they would have died anyways"... yeah, everyone dies eventually, more so old people with pre-existing conditions (but at a certain age, your age is a pre-existing condition, so...).  People who argue that shutting everything down doesn't cure anyone are right.  People who say that some other causes of death could get worse due to suicide or undiagnosed issues - they're right.  There are people saying that the number of lives saved from lessened exposure to pollution - they probably have a point too.  All valid points, but if you're looking at an issue with the potential when unchecked, to double in few days, then you act sooner rather than later, and the problems that grow in a more linear fashion.. those are the ones that you try not to overreact to.

• Marvin
Lv 7
4 months ago

Yup.  It is the Y2K over again.  Before someone makes a dumb comment about 100,000 Americans dead, ask yourselves this; how many Americans were killed by cars since January?

• 4 months ago

I think that people these days believe they have to hold a very AGREEABLE or very DISAGREEABLE opinion where this situation is not a straight forward one. You have people that catch it and supposedly the antibodies will continue to fight it off , there are cases which people catch it and have died,and there are people who caught it but are suffering from long-term unknown effects from the virus. That is your opinion to make if the cases are being blown out of proportion.

• 4 months ago

I think that it is too soon to know.

I do believe that the virus has shown the world how integrated and connected we are to each other.

I think we are being shown that we need to stop polluting and exploiting each other.

We need to connect and make life better for all or Nature will keep sending us blows.

• Zirp
Lv 7
4 months ago

this is not a chat-site

There certainly are more than enough "questions" about it on Y!A

• 4 months ago

N o..... but. in many areas the response to it is..... WAY over reaction......

• Anonymous
4 months ago

🥴

@ 97,000 dead in 2 months? And nearly 2 million infected?

Are you kidding me?

• Matt
Lv 5
4 months ago

Best to take it seriously and not underestimate.