A proposal to send to your state representative on getting America back to work The following proposal document is aimed at a Normie audience, and if people agree with it, the idea is to start flooding state representatives with this. Talking points: Now that last bullet point is subtle - the intent there is to undermine those that try to push more sensationalized fatality data, but does as President Trump does, and works with their data. The proposal is not fair to all age brackets but the curve of the fatality data is probably correct even if the rates may be exaggerated. The nature of the data is what it is and no human being has any control over that. To criticize the proposal by saying it singles out those in older age brackets "unfairly" is an emotional reaction and is not based in rationality. If the nation doesn't get back to work - and very quickly - then those in the more vulnerable age groups demographic will be far worse off in an economically crashed society where chaos erupts and becomes more catastrophic than this lock-down we've been through. Here is the proposal: Formulating A Rational Put-America-Back-To-Work Policy As many know, the cruise ship industry was particularly devastated by the coronavirus pandemic. We've all read the stories of ships having to remain in quarantine. And at this juncture (near the end of April), the entire fleet of cruise ships are docked and anchored sitting idle as crew staff by now have all be repatriated. However, from this captive audience of the cruise ships, both the passengers and the crew (which from any statistician's perspective is sizable enough to be statistically meaningful) we now have what are very solid data on the coronavirus infection. Here are the cruise ship industry figures: People testing positive for coronavirus: Number of coronavirus fatalities: The fatalities were mostly in the above 65 years of age demographic. Given this data, if one tested positive for coronavirus, the chance of becoming a fatality is 1.9%. This aligns fairly closely to a 1.8% US national figure cited by Business Insider [1]. (One has to keep in mind that under much more confined cruise ship conditions, the coronavirus virus had near maximal opportunity to be spread, so this 1.9% figure is really a worst case kind of figure.) However, age demographics is the primary determinate for those at risk. For instance, a Business Insider graph for the corona virus fatality rate shows the age group of 65-74 is about half the rate of the 75-84 age group, and the 55-64 group is about half the rate for the 65-74 group. For the group of 45-54 the coronavirus fatality rate is then comparable to that of ordinary flu strains. In other words, for those 55 and below, the risk of dying from the coronavirus is comparable to the risk for dying from ordinary flu strains. This age demographic fatality risk curve is not linear (i.e., is not a straight line slope of increase as age increases). So the age group in 55-60, if broken out separately, would, yes, be at a higher risk than the 45-54 group (where we're considering that demographic to be the base line of risk normalcy, i.e., that amount of risk from virus infection fatality that our society already accepts and functions around). Yet for this 55-60 group, the risk is at a level that many would deem an acceptable risk level if the issue at stake is being able to live a normal life verses being under what effectively is house arrest. The risk for this 55-60 group would be at about .8% to 1.2%. Yes, that's higher than the .6% risk of being a fatality from normal flu strains, but it's not outlandishly higher - definitely in the realm of what a lot of people would be willing to tolerate if it means resuming normal living. flu-vs-coronavirus-by-age-group Policy ramifications: These figures mean that in establishing guidelines for returning America back to work, the guidelines need to be based primarily around age demographics: Let those up to age 55 return to normal life in all facets Let those in the 56 to 60 group chose for themselves whether (at this time) to return to normal life, but require that where possible that employers accommodate their remote working if they are worried about a return to the physical work place For those 61 and above, they probably need to refrain from rejoining the physical work place at this time, and refrain as much as possible from mixing in the public spaces where would be around other people Continue with the posture of restricting access to assisted care for the elderly facilities, etc Naturally those with health pre-conditions fall into the same guidelines as for the age demographics that are at heightened risk Conclusion: In large part the cornovirus data show that the vast majority of the national population can return to work and resume normal life with a risk posture that is comparable to the risk posture that we cope with as from the usual flu strains. Guidelines need to be based primarily around vulnerable groups which is by far (statistically) dominated by age demographics. Those vulnerable due to medical pre-conditions should be regarded by those guidelines too, of course. Late-breaking information (APR 4th to 17th): A Stanford Medicine research study based on a sample population base of 3,200 people in Santa Clara County is indicating a far higher rate of COVID-19 infection in the general population than expected – 50 to 85 times higher. This study is indicating that current data presented to the public on such things as coronavirus fatality rates, could be presented as highly exaggerated vs. the actual reality. The above discussion was based on data that does not factor in this new study. The above assessment and recommendation was based on data derived from a highly confined, closely quartered cruise ship industry population base, whereas the Stanford Medicine COVID-19 antibody study is based on sampling the general population. https://www.stanforddaily.com/2020/04/04/stanford-researchers-test-3200-people-for-covid-19-antibodies/ https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/17/santa-clara-covid-19-antibody-study-suggests-broad-asymptomatic-spread.html [1] Business Insider citation:   “while it was 1.8% in the US”   https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-compared-seasonal-flu-in-the-us-death-rates-2020-3?op=1