g
So I'm seriously trying to understanding your point here. The mortality rate may be lower than originally thought--this should be good news, right? I don't think anyone on this board--left wing or right wing--wouldn't be thrilled to learn the mortality rate might be much lower. In fact, many on this board were talking about the need for more testing to help better identify the mortality rate.
But how does the lower mortality rate negate the 100,000 deaths? The mortality rate is a data point, as are the number of deaths...agree? There are other important data points such as the contagion rate. All of these are separate data points that come together to form a full picture of what we are dealing with.
Lower mortality rate than originally thought? Great! But, to quote your own article: "But even a virus with a fatality rate less than 1% presents a formidable threat, Rivers says. "That is many times more deadly than seasonal influenza," she says."
I want to open up our economy and the best chance we have of doing that is to slow down the spread. So wear a f*cking mask, wash your hands, and be a good citizen to those around you.