Quit wasting resources for Covid19

The mortality rates in Italy and South Korea show that there is very little risk to people below 60 . .2% and .4% respectively and it keeps dropping after that. (If anybody wants to debate those figures. The elderly are still the most at risk)

When you spread your resources to the breaking point you weaken your chance for any favorable results.

It’s like the fire department responding to a fire. Then hosing down every house on the street on their way by.

Testing every person in the country and the Democrats acting like it’s the bubonic plague make absolutely zero sense.

Most of the country is as confused as a baby in a topless bar. Because of the main stream media blaring out doom for all. i’ve seen it in the supermarket and now talked to people. Most of those have gone completely bonkers.

People need to be set on a even keel. It’s only then that sanity can break out.

We need to focus our resources on citizens 60 and above proportionately.

Trump promised to make $50 billion available to fight coronavirus nationwide.

15% of the population in the US is over 65.

Just think how effective $50 billion would be if concentrated on the elderly. Instead of being spread around like a STD at a dollar strip club.

Realistically the elderly are the only segment of the population that is at any real risk of death.

In a Family they are out most precious asset. Who’s care we are now tasked with as they once were with us.

Mom and dad come first. It doesn’t bother me any because I know all I’m going to catch is the flu

Nobody likes these threats but that hasn’t stopped me.

People everywhere need to step back from the drama. Take the blinders off and look at your dilemma from more than one angle.

The main stream media has turned the Democrats into a irrational angry mob that follows their every lie.

It’s disheartening to watch what they’re doing to us now.

a reply to: Fallingdown

The current mortality rate in Italy is 7%.

Not 0.7%, but 7%.

As of today, March 13, 2020.

a reply to: Liquesence

I’m not arguing any numbers.

I mentioned that in the last part of my first paragraph.

Tell me who are the most at risk ?

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: Fallingdown

The current mortality rate in Italy is 7%.

Not 0.7%, but 7%.

As of today, March 13, 2020.

23 percent of Italy's population is over 65 so unfortunately it's going to be high, Japan and Germany also have a high percentage of elderly people.

a reply to: Fallingdown

We know that the elderly and those with preexisting conditions are the most vulnerable. That has been said and shown multiple times over many threads.

What's your point?

originally posted by: Muninn

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: Fallingdown

The current mortality rate in Italy is 7%.

Not 0.7%, but 7%.

As of today, March 13, 2020.

23 percent of Italy's population is over 65 so unfortunately it's going to be high, Japan and Germany also have a high percentage of elderly people.

Italy's health care system is overwhelmed. They do not have the capacity to treat all those who need to be treated.

That is the point.

And that's what we want to prevent here.

a reply to: Liquesence

What’s your point?

You didn’t read the OP. 🤦‍♂️

At least skim it then get back to me .

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: Fallingdown

We know that the elderly and those with preexisting conditions are the most vulnerable. That has been said and shown multiple times over many threads.

What's your point?

He made his point...that was/is to focus the 50 billion where its the most effective: 60+


In the USA no less, speaking about Trump and the 50 billion, his argument was demographics

originally posted by: Fallingdown
a reply to: Liquesence

What’s your point?

You didn’t read the OP. 🤦‍♂️

At least skim it then get back to me .

I read it. Hence my responses.

Seems you don't understand how infection spreads. But wanna talk about the elderly.

Ignorance spreads disease.

a reply to: Liquesence

The United States does not have a large elderly population like Italy so why do we need to spend 50 billion on it?

That is the point not Italy.

originally posted by: BlueJacket

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: Fallingdown

We know that the elderly and those with preexisting conditions are the most vulnerable. That has been said and shown multiple times over many threads.

What's your point?

He made his point...that was/is to focus the 50 billion where its the most effective: 60+

The elderly and those with underlying conditions are more likely to die, but everyone else are potential carriers. That's why responsibilities include doing what is possible to not spread it.

originally posted by: Muninn
a reply to: Liquesence

The United States does not have a large elderly population like Italy so why do we need to spend 50 billion on it?

That is the point not Italy.

The US has a large elderly population.

Our fathers, mothers, grandmothers, etc.

But if you're all, "Meh, they're all, who cares of they die."

a reply to: Fallingdown

I assume you are not 60 or above right?

So, you don't want to spend the fake money that is typed into an account to assist our citizens because the cost is too high to test everyone who is a carrier?


If this stuff spreads to fast, we will Italy here.

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: BlueJacket

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: Fallingdown

We know that the elderly and those with preexisting conditions are the most vulnerable. That has been said and shown multiple times over many threads.

What's your point?

He made his point...that was/is to focus the 50 billion where its the most effective: 60+

The elderly and those with underlying conditions are more likely to die, but everyone else are potential carriers. That's why responsibilities include doing what is possible to not spread it.

No argument there. I was simply pointing out the OPs premise seemed clear.

My response would be weighted much differently than reacting however.

And the rest of the world wouldnt go along with my opinion anyway.

OP is correct, directing resources to the 60+ crowd would make the most sense. It might be a little rough for we in the 50-59 group but it goes up quickly beyond that so I would prefer that's where the money goes. But Democrats hate old people so that won't happen.

It's interesting to see how quickly the tide turns in a crisis. Our WalMart was fully stocked Tuesday night. Thursday night the TP isle was empty, as was all of the sanitizer, most of the laundry soap and I understand that today large sections of the food isles are now looking bare.

All I can do is shake my head in disbelief and hope to ride it out.

a reply to: Fallingdown

It’s unfortunate that times are as screwed up today.

Obama waited six months to declare a national emergency after the WHO declared a pandemic.
That’s isn’t a knock on Obama either, it’s just pointing out a similar situation in the recent past.

Anyone that doesn’t believe public pressure is forcing all this overreaction is just kidding themselves.

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: Fallingdown

I assume you are not 60 or above right?

So, you don't want to spend the fake money that is typed into an account to assist our citizens because the cost is too high?

Some of you guys are real pieces of work.

I believe the OP is stating he/she believes the resources would be best spent on 60+

a reply to: Liquesence

You brought up the hospitals being overwhelmed in Italy . The vast majority is old folks and concentrating on them would relieve that problem .

I know the initial infection rate was around 70%. They’re coming down on that now last I saw it was between 70 and 40 .

Plus apparently you’re oblivious of the fact that 80% of people infected .

GET THE FLU nothing more .

What do you have against old people anyway ?

Sound’s like you would prefer to Hayes and the odds of succumbing to Covid 19.

I guess it could be that logic thing we talked about before .

a reply to: BlueJacket

Yeah i modified but believe we need widespread testing to stomp this out and stop it similar to S. Korea.


Apologize, I am on quite a few boards and am getting ticked off by the "I am 20 and we are wasting money for something that just kills old people" line.

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: Muninn
a reply to: Liquesence

The United States does not have a large elderly population like Italy so why do we need to spend 50 billion on it?

That is the point not Italy.

The US has a large elderly population.

Our fathers, mothers, grandmothers, etc.

But if you're all, "Meh, they're all, who cares of they die."

The United States is not even in the top 25.