I said nothing about the consequences of an infection. I only talked about the likelihood of coming into some level of contact with someone that is infected. If we want to talk about probability of infections then seeing a provider is going to have a higher probability than going out in public (based on the data for my location). I just didn't feel like going down that path since it was a very low chance (a bit over half a percenct - 0.007%). The equivalent probability of getting infected from a buying groceries would have to be over 10% from just walking past someone which seems a bit high to me.
Also, you need to get off the it is only about dying boat. The evidence is growing that the possibility of dying is only ONE of the results of getting infected. Yes, none of us want to die but framing the situation as die or recover and be fine is bullshit.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-effects/scientists-just-beginning-to-understand-the-many-health-problems-caused-by-covid-19-idUSKBN23X1BZ http://www.cdc.gov/mis-c/hcp/ Last, yes I am fully aware that the case rates and the actual infections are much different. However that 10 times is more likely hyperbola than reality. None of the stories (and I am NOT going to take CNBC at face value) I've seen ever provide a link to the actual study or how various factors are controlled. This is important because:
"Note: This test can sometimes detect antibodies from other coronaviruses, which can cause a false positive result if you have been previously diagnosed with or exposed to other types of coronaviruses."
http://questdirect.questdiagnostics.com/products/covid-19-immune-response/b580e541-78a5-48a6-b17b-7bad949dcb57 And there are LOTS of types of coronavirus that people get exposed to. How is CDC/Redfield controlling for those?
This background on Redfield might be relevant.
http://www.cnn.com/2020/06/04/politics/cdc-redfield-aids-walter-reed-army-investigation/index.html "This is not the first time Redfield has been at the heart of a controversy over the government's response to a virus epidemic. In the early 1990s, Redfield, then one of the Army's top AIDS researchers, was at the center of a scandal over a purported HIV vaccine. Allegations that Redfield oversold data and cherry-picked results sparked an internal Army investigation into his work.
The Army ultimately did not charge Redfield with scientific misconduct. But interviews with former colleagues with direct knowledge of the investigation, and a review of internal documents suggest Redfield knew he was misrepresenting the data behind the vaccine, even as he publicly touted its results— an effort that ultimately helped garner millions in federal funds for further testing."