I didn’t compare the virus with the flu, but by doing so you prove an important point. I understand that COVID-19 is more dangerous than the yearly flu. We have outbreaks all the time in the United States: consider the Swine Flu, the Asian Flu, and the Bird Flu. These were all more deadly than the flu that we see every year, and that’s why they get attention. But we did not engage in these measures, although people of course were cautious of catching the disease and some places (again, some, not all or even close to most) were quarantined, and everything ended up being perfectly fine. Once again, this is overblown.

In the 2017-2018 flu season, 80,000 people in the United States died; assuming that the flu season lasts from October to the end of March, that about 440 people day; of course, some were much higher than others, but that’s if the same number of people died every day. For fun, look at how the 2017-2018 flu season was covered in the news, and compare it to how COVID-19 is being covered.

You must address my point that the average age of death from this disease is about the same as the life expectancy in the United States. The vast majority of the population is not under threat from this disease, and so it makes no sense to quarantine the entire population especially since the effects of the quarantine, millions of lost jobs and the destruction of the economy, will be worse than some people dying.

Now, I’m sure that you are unaware of the fact that even governor Cuomo himself has admitted that social distancing probably doesn’t work, because you may not have mentioned the effects of social distancing without at least making reference to this; but yet, Cuomo has said this. https://www.wnd.com/2020/03/gov-cuomo-questions-comprehensive-lockdown-strategy/

I don’t take what he says seriously, but you might. I suggest you read the article, but in any case consider this: people are leaving their houses and going to grocery stores that are now packed with people, much more packed now than most places that they would even go to on a daily basis under normal circumstances. They then come home to their families. How many people in each of those stores do you think has the virus? The virus is still being spread and probably even at the same rate, because people have to go to these stores to buy food.

Excuse me; I did misspeak. No, the Swine flu and the Bird flu did not have a higher death toll than the yearly flu. The Asian flu did by a lot, however. It is estimated that the Asian flu killed from 1 million to 2 million worldwide in 1957. Concerning the flu in 2009, all numbers that I can find on the Internet say that the death toll was about 80,000, not 61,000. The point, however, was that there was not this complete shutdown of the everything because of it.

Concerning the mortality rate, for most people, the rate is tremendously low; and that’s why I said it makes no sense to force everyone to stay home, and to force millions of businesses, through which people get their livelihood, to close. Only those at risk should have self-isolated.

Concerning the average age of death, once again, it’s just at the average life expectancy in the United States. The latest statistics that I checked said that the average age of death from this disease was 75, whereas the life expectancy in the United States is 78, around the age that they would die of disease anyway. I’m not saying that these people shouldn’t take precautions; what I’m saying is that this quarantine is unjustified.

I understand that the number of deaths is rapidly increasing; this is also to be expected from an outbreak. But does it make sense to close everything down, having millions of people lose their jobs, to prevent this? I suspect that the number of deaths will be around 100,000; are we going to destroy the world economy and millions of people lives for that?

Now, yes, a lot of elderly people are in government; it would have made sense if these people self-quarantined, because they’re at risk. Why should everyone else have to as well? And you’re definitely overestimating the number of seniors in government as well as the death rate for seniors if you think that the government would collapse if this virus was left to roam free (which, once again, is not what I am saying should have happened).

You didn’t address what I said about the supermarkets, and you have not addressed the impact that this quarantine will have on the livelihoods of millions of people.

Sorry for not responding sooner; it was getting late here.

I’d like to know where you get the information that the Asian flu was almost entirely restricted to East Asia outside of the United States, because from the information that I can gather, there were outbreaks all over the world, and especially in the United Kingdom; but I haven’t found much information concerning the spread of the virus.

According to news reports, the CDC has said that the death toll for the 2017-2018 flu outbreak was 80,000, and that it was 61,000. The official number is 61,000, but you can’t discount the 80,000 estimate. However, my only point in mentioning this flu outbreak was that the media did not even come close to the hysterics that they have engaged in when covering it, and most people didn’t even know about it. I do expect the COVID-19 outbreak to be more deadly than this; I wasn’t using the numbers to compare them. I don’t think that it’s productive to focus on this for this reason.

I don’t see what the mortality rate and hospitalization rate has to do with the fact that only those at risk should self-isolate, but you addressed this idea further a few paragraphs later. You say that those over 65 (and also those with pre-existing medical conditions, of course) would be forced to get supplies, and I assume that you are talking about food and toiletries. How would that be any different from how it is now? Don’t these people have to get supplies now, and thus be in contact with people who likely have the virus?

Now, I’ve always said that these people should have others do their errands for them, and there should be times in stores set apart for them to go if they must go. They should be wearing masks and always washing their hands, also taking high amounts of vitamin C. They are the ones at risk, and so they should be the ones to take these precautions; it doesn’t make sense that young and healthy people can’t go to work because others are at risk.

If you are talking about medical supplies, once again, it’s the same now; I haven’t heard of hospital staff delivering them medical supplies to their homes. The point is that, what would be a problem under what I proposed, is already a problem under this quarantine. And it doesn’t need to be either way.

The issue of supermarkets is not one to be ignored. What are markets and local governments doing to control the spread in these places, and why can’t these methods be applied in all places? You say that if one is to choose between livelihoods and lives, they must choose lives. But this is insane: a person’s livelihood is how they stay alive in the first place. Forcing millions of people go into unemployment at the same time for an unknown period of time will cause complete chaos in our society, and most likely complete economic collapse. When I say that this virus is overblown, I mean that it does not warrant these sorts of measures; this will cause much more damage than even one million deaths in the United States.

Concerning what you said about hospitalization, the 5% of people 40-year-olds who require hospitalization are going to those who are at risk, who I have said should self-quarantine, like the elderly. Now, I believe that this is much lower, as are all, because you are (presumably) using the number of confirmed cases as the number for the total number of people who have the virus. Many people likely have virus who are not recorded to have it because they had very minor symptoms or none at all. Even mainstream sources, which I doubt, are saying that the vast majority of cases are mild. I’d suggest that most people who have this disease right now don’t know that they do. If this is the case, then all percentages go down drastically. But I still get your point; hospitalizations will increase, and that’s why the small number of non-seniors who are at risk should self-quarantine. But should all?

Concerning my guess that about 100,000 will die, you said that that’s at the low end of the CDC’s predictions; but just a two weeks ago it was predicted that at least 2 million would die, which is what the government went with. You can say that this lockdown is why the number has decreased so greatly, but considering the fact that people are still interacting with each other, in the supermarkets, this just doesn’t make sense.

Consider also how the government is using the virus to take away our rights; that should at least make you suspicious if nothing else. I also recommend this article if you have time. https://canadafreepress.com/article/the-common-roots-of-climate-change-and-covid-19-hysteria

Concerning what you said about how this quarantine decreases the chances of a self-quarantined at-risk people getting the virus and comparing it to what I suggested, it’s clear that a quarantine is an overreaction; it’s overkill. Most of these people, having family to help them, have the ability to ask others to get their food and medical supplies for them. If they want, the loved one who does this can drop the food or medicine off at their door so that they don’t have to come in contact with them. For those who absolutely don’t have anyone to help them, times should be set apart where only those who are at risk, who would presumably not have the virus, can shop. This simply makes more sense considering the detrimental economic effects that a full lockdown will soon have.

You haven’t been understanding what I suggested entirely. I have said that those at risk are those who are elderly and those who have pre-existing conditions, not only those who are elderly. It’s reasonable to believe that most of that 5% that are hospitalized had pre-existing conditions. Those most likely to be hospitalized (because they have pre-existing conditions) would self-quarantine as well and adhere to the same precautions.

Concerning hospitals being overrun, based on the statistics, I can see that. But I would like to know what is counted as a “hospitalization”, because I haven’t been able to find information on this. Is a person who is hospitalized and then tests positive for COVID-19 considered to have been hospitalized because of that disease? Does he have to test positive before he is admitted to the hospital to be considered hospitalized for the disease, or is he tested inside of the hospital? If he is tested while in the hospital, how long does it take for him to be tested? We know that the disease spreads very rapidly in hospitals where it is present; in South Korea they cause the most cluster infections.

But I still don’t believe that this warrants a shutdown of the entire economy, which means that millions of people lose their jobs. 10 million people filed for unemployment in the last two weeks of March alone. If hospitals are being overrun, they need to tell people that have loved ones over 75 that are sick to stay home; I know that this is very sad for people and would cause outrage, but it’s either some sick, very elderly people die or there is a devastating economic crash, which now is already in the works. I guarantee that this will cause much more outrage, and will be much more damaging in the long run. If you really think that “money can be restored” in this context, you’re mistaken. The consolation is that these elders have already reached life expectancy. And I suspect that hospitals will start to do this soon anyway.

All I can say about your comment that an economy can be restored is that I hope you’re right; but from what I see, this economic crash will be devastating, much more than COVID-19.

I don’t see tens or hundreds of thousands of healthy working-age individuals would die if only those at risk self-quarantined; yes, some healthy people do die of this disease, but it happens very seldomly.

By saying that other coronaviruses cause lung scarring and fibrosis, you are essentially admitting that this happens already. But by saying that we “don’t know what may happen” concerning the long-term effects of this disease, you are saying that we ought to do something that is certain to cause mass destruction, namely, putting millions of people out of jobs, in order to stop a potential problem. Mass unemployment is much more serious than you seem to think it is. But in any case, my proposed solution not only makes more sense in fighting against this virus, but it was obvious.

Concerning your final paragraph, based on how receptive people were to everything that the government told them concerning this virus, I am sure that workplaces would have engaged in frequent sanitation of all handleable materials, telling people to always wipe whatever they use; yes, this would be annoying, but it’s not only less annoying than a complete shutdown, but it’s also much less destructive. In any case, though, those who were at risk of developing serious complications should not be in the workplace at all.

Dedicated hours for seniors and those at risk would be possible for all retail stores, and other workplaces could have seniors work from home, or else live on their savings for a while.

The media’s coverage of this virus is creating mass hysteria.

All respiratory illnesses have the potential to cause serious lung damage, but research (https://health.clevelandclinic.org/heres-the-damage-coronavirus-covid-19-can-do-to-your-lungs/) tells us that these serious problems occur in the minority of people who have severe cases of COVID-19, not among those who have mild cases. It makes sense that the percentage of people who suffered such damage would be greater with SARS because SARS is much more dangerous overall than COVID-19 is. The article that I linked talks about acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), as do most that talk about lung damage caused by COVID-19; I haven’t found anything concerning induced pulmonary fibrosis specifically, but if you have, I would appreciate it if you linked it.

I never opposed the closing of schools; that’s mostly harmless, although it may by psychologically dangerous to some students and may result in some layoffs (teachers and administrators would be immune to this). I’d like to know where your information concerning business closures and significant economic downturn comes from, because, I couldn’t find anything that said anything of the sort; however, according to the Economic Report of the President in 1957 (https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/files/docs/publications/ERP/1958/ERP1958_Chapter2.pdf), 1957 was a prosperous year overall (no, I did not just read the first sentence, but it’s a good summary of the entire report), and there was not even a mention of economic troubles.

It says that unemployment remained stable throughout the year with only a slight increase from the last year, and gross domestic increased from the last year. There is no mention of mass business closures either or of the flu pandemic that took place during that year, among other things. It’s an interesting paper overall. One would think that the sort of thing you described would be necessary to mention. The fact is, though, that the majority of businesses were indeed open, which is not like how it is now. We are seeing most businesses either close or experience a large decrease in sales because the media has got everyone fearing that they might die if they leave their homes; I have spoken to people and seen how they speak online, and this is how they feel. Once again, 10 million applied for unemployment in only the last two weeks of March, and it will get worse.

I don’t believe that your statistics concerning those with diabetes and other illnesses considers some necessary factors. Firstly, according to this source: https://www.aarp.org/work/employers/info-2019/americans-working-past-65.html, in 2019, about 20% of people over 65 were employed or looking for employment, which means that less than 20% of those over 65 are working, and thus over 80% are not. Those who are also tend to be healthier. Secondly, according to this source, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1500929/, people over 65 account for 60% of all newly diagnosed cancer malignancies, and “cancer incidence in humans rises exponentially in the final decades of life”. This essentially means that most of the people with cancer are over 65, and thus wouldn’t be working. Diabetes and heart disease are also skewed towards the elderly, although many under 65 have both conditions.

But even if it is the case that 15-20% or even a slightly higher percentage of Americans wouldn’t be working, this would be preferable to shutting down most of the economy, putting millions out of jobs. 80% of Americans would be working, and many of those who are at risk would most likely be working from home anyway and still getting paid. I disagree that businesses would not be able to function under these conditions, and, in any case, this is a terrible justification for shutting all businesses down.

What you said about those at risk interacting with healthy family members who may have the disease is a legitimate concern with what I proposed; but what you said about choke points applies here, although in a different way. These people should be wearing masks, even in the home, they should be constantly washing their hands, and they should limit their physical contact with family members. Everyone in the family should also wash thoroughly clean whatever they use, that the at-risk person would also use. Like I said about workplaces, this would be annoying, but it would be worth it.

Also consider that most of those over 65 and probably many over 55 live only with their spouse, or alone. This would mitigate the problem.

Thank you for your service as a doctor. My question concerning hospitalizations was this: how is a person said to have been hospitalized for a certain disease? If they have the flu, for example, are how are they considered to have been hospitalized because of the flu specifically? If they were in the hospital already for something else and then got the flu in the hospital, would they be counted as having been hospitalized for the flu as well? I know that the question sounds like it has an obvious answer, but considering that in some countries like Italy, a person is said to have “died” of COVID-19 if they just had it in their system when they died, this question is not too unreasonable.

Another question is this: there were said to have been 10,900 hospitalizations in New York as of March 31. Does this number include the people who were hospitalized and have now left the hospital? Are all of those people in the hospitals right now? Considering the videos that people are taking of hospitals that are said to be overrun, which show that they are not at all overrun (you can find these here: https://twitter.com/hashtag/FilmYourHospital?src=hash), I doubt what they say about hospitals being overrun, although I see it as being possible based on the statistics alone. The answers to the questions that I asked are will factor into this.

I also wouldn’t be surprised if many of those who go to the hospital for this disease (that don’t need respirators) could be treated at home, based on what they say they do to treat the illness. Treatment mainly consists of rest, drinking fluids, and consuming Vitamin C, from what I have heard; why can’t this be done at home for those who don’t need respirators?

I would disagree with your last statement. The vast majority of cases are still mild or asymptomatic, and the media is overblowing the threat of the virus by making it seem like this is not the case; most believe that this virus will kill them if they get it, although this is extremely unlikely for most. Even the majority of the old survive, although they need medical help. Yes, there are some logistical problems associated with the disease, but it’s not apocalyptic. The death rate is extremely low, and likely under 1%, and severe cases are very low as well. It does not warrant this shutdown, or the panic that it has created in most people of this country.

Like I said before, this illness is killing people on average at the life expectancy, and most have some underlying condition. Why would you cause mass panic because of this? If hospitals can’t take everyone, why wouldn’t it be proper to tell the oldest to stay home?

I’ll just post it again.

All respiratory illnesses have the potential to cause serious lung damage, but research (https://health.clevelandcli… tells us that these serious problems occur in the minority of people who have severe cases of COVID-19, not among those who have mild cases. It makes sense that the percentage of people who suffered such damage would be greater with SARS because SARS is much more dangerous overall than COVID-19 is. The article that I linked talks about acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), as do most that talk about lung damage caused by COVID-19; I haven’t found anything concerning induced pulmonary fibrosis specifically, but if you have, I would appreciate it if you linked it.

I never opposed the closing of schools; that’s mostly harmless, although it may by psychologically dangerous to some students and may result in some layoffs (teachers and administrators would be immune to this). I’d like to know where your information concerning business closures and significant economic downturn comes from, because, I couldn’t find anything that said anything of the sort; however, according to the Economic Report of the President in 1957 (https://fraser.stlouisfed.o…, 1957 was a prosperous year overall (no, I did not just read the first sentence, but it’s a good summary of the entire report), and there was not even a mention of economic troubles.

It says that unemployment remained stable throughout the year with only a slight increase from the last year, and gross domestic increased from the last year. There is no mention of mass business closures either or of the flu pandemic that took place during that year, among other things. It’s an interesting paper overall. One would think that the sort of thing you described would be necessary to mention. The fact is, though, that the majority of businesses were indeed open, which is not like how it is now. We are seeing most businesses either close or experience a large decrease in sales because the media has got everyone fearing that they might die if they leave their homes; I have spoken to people and seen how they speak online, and this is how they feel. Once again, 10 million applied for unemployment in only the last two weeks of March, and it will get worse.

I don’t believe that your statistics concerning those with diabetes and other illnesses considers some necessary factors. Firstly, according to this source: https://www.aarp.org/work/e…, in 2019, about 20% of people over 65 were employed or looking for employment, which means that less than 20% of those over 65 are working, and thus over 80% are not. Those who are also tend to be healthier. Secondly, according to this source, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.go…, people over 65 account for 60% of all newly diagnosed cancer malignancies, and “cancer incidence in humans rises exponentially in the final decades of life”. This essentially means that most of the people with cancer are over 65, and thus wouldn’t be working. Diabetes and heart disease are also skewed towards the elderly, although many under 65 have both conditions.

But even if it is the case that 15-20% or even a slightly higher percentage of Americans wouldn’t be working, this would be preferable to shutting down most of the economy, putting millions out of jobs. 80% of Americans would be working, and many of those who are at risk would most likely be working from home anyway and still getting paid. I disagree that businesses would not be able to function under these conditions, and, in any case, this is a terrible justification for shutting all businesses down.

What you said about those at risk interacting with healthy family members who may have the disease is a legitimate concern with what I proposed; but what you said about choke points applies here, although in a different way. These people should be wearing masks, even in the home, they should be constantly washing their hands, and they should limit their physical contact with family members. Everyone in the family should also wash thoroughly clean whatever they use, that the at-risk person would also use. Like I said about workplaces, this would be annoying, but it would be worth it.

Also consider that most of those over 65 and probably many over 55 live only with their spouse, or alone. This would mitigate the problem.

Thank you for your service as a doctor. My question concerning hospitalizations was this: how is a person said to have been hospitalized for a certain disease? If they have the flu, for example, are how are they considered to have been hospitalized because of the flu specifically? If they were in the hospital already for something else and then got the flu in the hospital, would they be counted as having been hospitalized for the flu as well? I know that the question sounds like it has an obvious answer, but considering that in some countries like Italy, a person is said to have “died” of COVID-19 if they just had it in their system when they died, this question is not too unreasonable.

Another question is this: there were said to have been 10,900 hospitalizations in New York as of March 31. Does this number include the people who were hospitalized and have now left the hospital? Are all of those people in the hospitals right now? Considering the videos that people are taking of hospitals that are said to be overrun, which show that they are not at all overrun (you can find these here: https://twitter.com/hashtag…, I doubt what they say about hospitals being overrun, although I see it as being possible based on the statistics alone. The answers to the questions that I asked are will factor into this.

I also wouldn’t be surprised if many of those who go to the hospital for this disease (that don’t need respirators) could be treated at home, based on what they say they do to treat the illness. Treatment mainly consists of rest, drinking fluids, and consuming Vitamin C, from what I have heard; why can’t this be done at home for those who don’t need respirators?

I would disagree with your last statement. The vast majority of cases are still mild or asymptomatic, and the media is overblowing the threat of the virus by making it seem like this is not the case; most believe that this virus will kill them if they get it, although this is extremely unlikely for most. Even the majority of the old survive, although they need medical help. Yes, there are some logistical problems associated with the disease, but it’s not apocalyptic. The death rate is extremely low, and likely under 1%, and severe cases are very low as well. It does not warrant this shutdown, or the panic that it has created in most people of this country.

Like I said before, this illness is killing people on average at the life expectancy, and most have some underlying condition. Why would you cause mass panic because of this? If hospitals can’t take everyone, why wouldn’t it be proper to tell the oldest to stay home?

Just because white people don’t want to live with large groups of brown and black people in their communities doesn’t make them racist, it makes them logical and observant.

oh. you thought Europe and the US & A would be the world’s leaders forever? how cute.