@Bryan Taylor6I seem to recall the Chinese authorities mentioning that once this whole epidemic settles down, they plan to conduct an extensive study on a massive sample size—something in the ballpark of 100,000 randomly selected individuals—to check for the presence of antibodies. The idea is that this will finally reveal what actual percentage of the population actually came into contact with the virus and developed immunity.
If we look at the official statistics coming out of China, about 80,000 people fell ill and 3,000 passed away. That works out to roughly 0.006% of the Chinese population, with a mortality rate of about 4% among those infected... So, according to the official numbers, the death rate sits at a rather "terrifying" 4%.
But just imagine if it turns out that 50% of the Chinese population actually encountered the virus, while the death toll remained at that same 3,000 mark. What would the mortality rate be then? It would be practically negligible!
Here is another interesting observation: in Italy, about three-quarters of those who died from COVID-19 were men. Furthermore, the median age of the deceased was 80.5 years, which happens to be exactly the same as the average life expectancy for an Italian man... I wonder what kind of conclusion one might draw from such a coincidence?
Could it be that the people dying from COVID-19 are simply those who, statistically speaking, were already reaching the end of their lives anyway, yet their deaths are being selectively attributed to the virus just to fuel the ongoing hysteria?
Just because someone had a confirmed case of the coronavirus in their system when they passed doesn't necessarily mean they died *because* of the virus. I stumbled upon some data suggesting that for only about 12% of those deaths can it be indisputably proven that the virus was the direct cause, rather than some other underlying condition that would have claimed them regardless.
In fact, a staggering 99.2% of those who passed away had at least one serious chronic illness.