No. Because only 1 in 1000 people die from the flu, it doesn't put 5% of its victims on a respirator, and we already have vaccines and partial immunity.
They are shook of coronavirus because the death rate appears much higher, because it puts a lot of folk on respirators, and because we have no vaccine and no immunity.
The issue isn't how many people have ALREADY died. If you wait till that many people have ALREADY died, you're totally fukked. You've lost. You can't respond to pandemics AFTER they happen, do you realize that?
The issue is that if we do nothing, and just as many folk catch this shyt as catch the flu, then our entire health care system will be fukked over and hundreds of thousands of people will die. So we take preventative measures so that WON'T happen.
Here's my question for you. If a highly communicable pandemic is spreading that could potentially kill 1% of its victims, how long do you think the government should wait to mount a serious response? Do you think they should wait until 50,000 people die to take things seriously? What's your cut-off point for serious action?
Great question...
If that was the case.... then a government would have to do something.
Heres the problem... like I said in another thread.
Tom hanks, his wife... Idris, rudy, etc has it.
If they dont die and pull thru this with NO serious complications (pretty much all of them werent sick at all)
Then I'd be questioning all the information already put out there about the virus.
So what I'm trying to say is that... ur talking about how bad this virus is without ur own 1st hand knowledge.
I pretty much only go by knowledge that I can pretty much monitor with my own eyes (even that cant be trusted at times)
But ur saying how bad this thing is.... and I'm saying that this thing is in the US now, and apparently, from what I'm seeing, if I'm the government... the country should go on business as usual