Not sure if this has been shared over here...been out of pocket a few days.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/05/28/863944333/antibody-tests-point-to-lower-death-rate-for-the-coronavirus-than-first-thought

" Mounting evidence suggests the coronavirus is more common and less deadly than it first appeared.

The evidence comes from tests that detect antibodies to the coronavirus in a person's blood rather than the virus itself.

The tests are finding large numbers of people in the U.S. who were infected but never became seriously ill. And when these mild infections are included in coronavirus statistics, the virus appears less dangerous.

"The current best estimates for the infection fatality risk are between 0.5% and 1%," says Caitlin Rivers, an epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security.

That's in contrast with death rates of 5% or more based on calculations that included only people who got sick enough to be diagnosed with tests that detect the presence of virus in a person's body."

Not arguing anything. Re-confirming. More and more data = better. And despite what America is still doing, some still don't think it's right. Not necessarily on this board. But in general

Joe Exotic said:

---

Complete Idiot said:

---

What are we still arguing? Hasn't America been cautiously reopening, based on this data, since the end of April?

---

I think the reality is that we no longer need to do it cautiously

---

So not agreeing with the current plans in place. What needs to be immediately changed - no masks, restaurants at 100%, etc. Went on a Frio trip this past weekend and every cabin was full, lots of traffic through Austin and out through the HIll Country, so things are getting closer and closer to where we would all want to be. Have to keep an eye on new cases, hot spots, etc to keep as many people safe as possible but I like how things have been going since the end of April. More reliable and confirming data, countries opening back up, people feeling safer to be out and about, etc.

I think every step in the world wide decision making processes will be second guessed with hindsight but I do struggle with how much I would have felt safe doing differently from the beginning, with what was known at the time each decision was made. I guess I don't believe with the idea that nearly every worldwide country decided to use the situation to oppress their people, or that media alone forced all those countries to have implemented lockdowns. As someone who thinks the media DOES influence the populace, far too much, I even wondered if I was in a way manipulated into being too concerned. If I watched a daily website tracking flu deaths, and an article was written on every site every day discussing the oddities of influenza as far as random healthy kids and adults dying of it, would I be way more scared of the flu than I am otherwise? Possibly. Probably. So hyper attention, combined with a legitimate fear that it's inevitable that more deadly pandemics will eventually occur, possibly all combined for what in two years the world will decide was an overreaction. But having all the data in hindsight is different than the CHinese and very preliminary Iran/Italy/Spain info we had in March.

Certainly will be a three month period I'll never forget.