[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimates_of_historical_world_...
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/preliminary-in-season-e...
"Sure Covid19 has killed 100,000 people, but really that's no big deal--when you compare Covid19 to death itself you can see that death kills way more people."
Yes, the virus has a high rate of transmission, thus we see a spike in deaths, but once it runs its course things will probably normalize and we can get on with our lives. Most people's immune system responds well to the virus.
So the NYTimes and friends publish meaningless statistics because it looks worse than it actually is and it helps them sell more ads and subscriptions by getting more clicks. If they reported the data within the context of reality, it wouldn't be as scary. I think the news is the main reason for the mass hysteria about this virus, meanwhile people continue to smoke cigarettes, drive cars, pollute, avoid exercise, and engage in a bunch of other activities that are far more likely to shorten their lifespan.
Anyway, I'm fine with burning karma because I think there's more harm from the economic effects of force people to stay home, which hurts the most vulnerable people the most. Rich people will be fine. I'll keep repeating myself because I'd rather try and convince people to get on with their lives than contribute to the sensationalist mania.
Yes, obviously everyone dies no matter what. The question is, do they die after a long life, surrounded by friends and family, or do they die decades earlier surrounded by strangers in hazmat suits?
But, you knew that.
> These headlines are sensationalist, especially since they miss the point that most of the deaths are from people who are already sick to begin with (i.e., heart disease or obesity comorbidity rate is very high).
Yes, but despite these pre-existing conditions, many of those people would have gone on to live for decades. You can't just pretend that's no big deal.
> Plus, in the US alone, around 100k people die every single month just from heart disease and cancer[1].
Sure, and that's absolutely something I would like to see change, but there's not much I can do about it. If that number were growing exponentially and I could do something to stop it, I would.
> Yes, the virus has a high rate of transmission, thus we see a spike in deaths, but once it runs its course things will probably normalize and we can get on with our lives.
Small detail worth mentioning--if it just "runs its course" completely unchecked, hundreds of thousands of people die. But hey, don't let mass death get in the way of your getting on with your life.
> Anyway, I'm fine with burning karma because I think there's more harm from the economic effects of force people to stay home, which hurts the most vulnerable people the most. Rich people will be fine.
We have better options than "let the old and immunocompromised die" and "fuck the poor". This is a false dichotomy you're presenting here.
Its introduction into our population was an event that we observed more or less directly. We can learn from that, and (motivated by that event's total cost) we can try to do better next time (and something similar will almost certainly happen again). Can't quite say the same about death itself.