Whilst the vulnerable shield. That could be 99.99% of the population! You said it yourself, that's the percentage of vulnerable people dying. You're overlooking the fact that it's not normal for people with minor health problems to suddenly drop dead. I have high blood pressure but I don't expect to be dying any time soon. I think you're also overlooking how common health problems are. For people over the age of 40 minor health problems will be quite common.alexmr2 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 18, 2021 4:24 amI agree that risks and rewards need to be weighed up rather than a binary decision, that's why I'm always looking at the numbers and thinking hmmmm only 0.01% of under 60s with no health issues have died 10 months later so maybe let society get on with it whilst the vulnerable shield and that will minimise the overall deaths/destruction compared to all the bad knock-on suffering to the vast majority + kids through lockdowns.Derek27 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 18, 2021 4:12 am
Remember what Peter said here, which is the mistake you're making.I wouldn't like to shop at your supermarket. Walking past a 100 people in 10 minutes is one person every 6 seconds. If you're keeping 2 metres away you're not really walking past but avoiding them. Furthermore, walking past somebody isn't that risky. The risk is standing in close proximity for several minutes.Euler wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 1:05 pmI'm constantly fascinated by way people feel there is a need to be right or wrong. It's probably the biggest mistake I see in the markets. People make a decision then try and find facts to fit that view.
I sit back look at the facts and try and make a decision.
You're also selfish enough to not care about all the elderly people who have to go to the shops to get food, while healthy people would be happily spreading the virus that may kill that elderly person. Not everybody has someone to do their shopping.
WTF are you talking about?? You said the virus doesn't exist!!