[zdragnar]

The question wasn't "are vulnerable people vulnerable" it was "why is there a focus on whether a person might have had another condition?". The answer potentially changes the extent to which our hospital systems are inadequate to treat patients.

Keep in mind that 2-5% is likely way overblown given how little testing has been done. Unless I am misinformed, the Diamond Princess cruise that had been infected and quarantined had a fatality rate under 1%, and that presumably had a more vulnerable population. A more realistic mortality rate is well below 1% https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/a-fiasco-in-the-making-a...

In either case, I am actually more vulnerable than the standard healthy young adult, and it is very easy to say that mortality rates havent been high, especially in the context of a discussion over whether the virus might be mutating to become even more deadly than it already is.

[beat]

If you want to play pedantic with the numbers, you need to be a lot more aggressive with the whys. Italy currently has a 7.2% mortality rate, but... they believe they are undercounting fatalities due to the virus, because the medical system is overwhelmed and many are dying without seeing doctors or being tested/treated.

Needless to say, a collapse of the medical system and an inability to treat those who are sick has a severe negative effect on the survival rate. That's what social distancing is about - reducing the rate of infection so we lower the peaks striking the medical system. If you develop pneumonia and go to a hospital and get put on a ventilator, you could well survive. If you can't get a ventilator because we as a civilization are out of them, well... you'll probably die, either directly from the virus or from opportunistic secondary bacterial infection.

So the numbers may be underestimated as well as overestimated. It's very much a circumstantial question, and when we haven't scaled cases into the millions yet, we haven't seen the worst of what can happen.