A flashback:
In 2003, it was said SARS was going to kill us all.
It didn’t.
In 2005, Bird Flu was supposed to wreak havoc.
It didn’t.
In 2009, Swine Flu was definitely the one to polish us all off.
Nope, not even close.
As recently as 2016, Zika virus was predicted to wipe out humanity.
Wrong again.
Mass hysteria is far worse than any of these diseases, and claims more lives per annum.
Who's talking about extinction here? So because it might not wipe out the planet, it's not worth getting under control because it doesn't affect the majority infected badly?
You have no idea how to consider the effects of carriers on the vulnerable and, even more so, the effects this can have on health systems in almost every country. I won't even get started on irrelevant comparisons to different past epidemics. I do find it cute you tried to downplay it by comparisons to SARS, which maxed out around 9000 cases, while COVID-19 is already at 130,000 confirmed, but in reality will be at half a million within weeks.
The reason for limiting crowds isn't to "save humanity" and overreact like your poorly educated stance likes to think. No matter what the virus is likely to infect a large number of people regardless of whether events go ahead or not.
What the objective of these policies is, is to spread that number out over a longer period of time. Health systems will collapse under the numbers all around the world if the peak is too large. There is a difference between contain and delay. When contain fails, delay has multiple benefits.
Your dismissive statements on the area are honestly not worthy of a response, and sound like tired Facebook boomer arguments that have been old since mid-January. But I reply not for your education, but because misinformation and the "oh it doesn't effect me" recurrence must be combated, for any other readers' benefit who may take your dangerous rhetoric seriously.
The world is winding down at the recommendation of every single reputable health organisation there is, all of which employ countless scientific and health staff with thousands of years of study and experience between them. Data and simulations which any intelligent person can access show the virus is fightable, and yes, may really be "nothing to worry about" for 90 percent of the population. But that's not how health science works. I'm sure many here know someone aged over 70. And they may also not find it comforting that just because they are younger and likely not at risk, that they are supposed to not take measures protect elderly and handicapped populations who this virus has the potential to ravage.
I could honestly go on and on. I could talk in detail about how the virus has been shown to leave longer lasting negative effects on the lungs on those who recover. Or talk about the silly comparisons the uneducated love to parrot on about to the flu, despite the fact humanity has had vaccines and built immunity to it over time. I could also mention the nature of transmission being over double the common flu.
So nah, very little of what the world is doing is "overreaction". I would in fact argue that there is an alarming sense of underreaction from those who wish to bury their heads in the sand without thinking 2 weeks ahead, as should be happening.
There's just one part I'll concede to you Jimmy. The overreaction and hysteria of the toilet paper hoarding is misplaced and stupid.
