Try to follow the logic with me:
1) The widely accepted number is that 50% of people are asymptomatic. I am not referring to antibody tests. This has been shown in jurisdictions where a large sample of the public have been tested such as Iceland and parts of Italy.
Here's a quote from an article about the USS Roosevelt:
These test only show people currently infected with the virus. They do not show people whose system have already fought it off which would be revealed by antibody testing. AFAIK there is still not a 100% foolproof antibody test.
2) We know that unhealthy and older people tend to be hit harder by the virus. So if 50% of the entire population is asymptomatic, that likely means that less than 50% of older people and people with underlying health issues are asymptomatic and more than 50% of young healthy people are asymptomatic. For example, assuming a population with an equal number of older/unhealthy people and healthy young people, the rate of asymptotic infection in older/unhealthy people could be 40% while the rate in younger people could be 60% to arrive at an average of 50%.
3) So we know based on the 50% number, it is likely that more than half of young healthy people are asymptomatic. Most jurisdictions are only testing people who show symptoms, so these asymptotic people are not counted in the numbers of confirmed cases.
4)
Look at these number from April 14th in New York. At that point 309 people between 18 and 44 had died. Of that 309, only 25 or 8% were confirmed not to have any underlying health issues. 79% had underlying health issues such as hypertension or diabetes and 13% were unknown.
5) Further down the page you can see that adults under 50 have a roughly 0.2%-0.4% of fatality. This number is obtained by dividing the number of deaths by the number of confirmed cases. So remember that at least 50% of people who are asymptomatic we talked about earlier, they wouldn't have been tested a thus would not have been counted in there numbers. So right away you can pretty well cut this number in half.
6) This fatality rate also includes the 79% of deaths who we know for 100% had underlying health issues like hypertension or diabetes. I don't care to do the match to work out what that actually brings the odds of death to if you are you and healthy, but it's below 0.1% when you factor in asymptomatic cases that aren't counted in the tally and factor in that 79% of the deaths that are counted are people with underlying issues like diabetes or hypertension.
7) If you're under 50 and you are afraid of a < 0.1% fatality rate you are a retard.
Your chances of developing colon cancer under 50 are several times higher. There is a 2% chance you have an unruptured brain aneurysm right now.
This information is from reputable sources, not fringe conspiracy sites. Stop gargling CNN's balls.
I'm not saying it's not a problem. It's very contagious and a sizable percentage of people who are old and have health issues end up in ICU and dying, overwhelming ICU resources. However, if you are under 50 and healthy your chances of dying from the virus are several times lower than your chances of dying for a myriad of other things that can kill you that you don't bother thinking about because they're not in the news.
Now the issue in my mind, do you think it's more realistic to lockdown the entirety of society, including the group that has a statistically insignificant chance of dying long-term, or more realistic to just pay people who are in high risk groups such as the elderly and people with preexisting health issues to stay home until a vaccine or some kind of herd immunity can be achieved?
