Ah, so it is based on European data, not US data. I am less persuaded...and would love to see the underlying statistics and variations year-to-year to see how much variation there is in those countries. Comparisons to the average death rate may or may not be valid without also examining the year-to-year "normal" variations. I have seen that data for the US, but not for Europe.
Moreover, the article states 60%, but its own graphs and charts only support 49% increase, so I am less than impressed by their acumen with that type of mistake (if I am reading it correctly, of course).
But I do agree that the total death rate is the key to examine to really understand what is happening. I wonder why we are not yet seeing that in the USA. It may take time to see that data, but it is hard to see that it might match to the 60% rate suggested in that article or in Red's post.
And, as
@RamblinRed himself said, we need to be careful with what facts we quote. For example, there is plenty of disagreement still about the mortality rate, and it is NOT a consensus that it is between 0.5-0.8% as Red stated. There is plenty of suggestion that it is much lower and much closer to 0.1% based on the studies released in California (2) , Florida (1) and now New York (1 updated today).
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/202...ount-coronavirus-infections-may-be-unreliable
I agree that the lockdowns, based on what we knew at that time, were the right steps to take. The biggest reason given...over and over again...was to avoid overwhelming our medical system. Well, outside on NYC, we have not seen our medical systems overwhelmed anywhere. Trump is correct when he states that not a single patient who needed a ventilator went without one. And, we have hundreds, no thousands, sitting in warehouses that will never be touched or used. Mission accomplished.
Now the question is next steps. The question really revolves around whether we can open the economy and yet still provide protections for those who are elderly or have underlying health conditions. This report form that bastion of conservatism The Guardian reports that not only did students not suffering's much themselves for the coronavirus, but they turned out to NOT be the carriers of the disease that everyone fears they are.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ays-study-cited-in-pms-push-to-reopen-schools
That REALLY STRONGLY suggests that we should re-open all schools in the Fall. Follow the science. I have yet to see anything besides models and assumptions that argue against this approach. Show me the studies that have shown that students are rabid carriers of the disease and could devastate older populations.
There are some arguments that lockdowns don't really save lives:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/do-loc...data-say-no-11587930911?mod=trending_now_pos3
That article points out that other factors seem more likely to explain the death stats, mostly to do with the proximity of people in heavy urban areas...not an overall lockdown itself.
Some of the points I have made are debatable and need more data, BUT I am beginning to become annoyed with repeating data that is NOT yet accepted by many in the field as if it were fact. If we are indeed to "follow the science", we MUST follow all of the science, and not JUST the science that we happen to agree with.