> COVID is a serious threat, and people need to stop taking it lightly. I do not believe devin is a COVID denier, but he is using language that is dangerously close to being misinterpreted as being one, at least, in my opinion.

So what's your point? That's a totally useless argument. If he's not a COVID denier, as you put it, what purpose does it serve to suggest that he's adjacent to COVID denial besides to discredit him based on your sensibilities?

> It isn't a question of who is more intelligent, it is a question of what does the science say, and what is the most accurate interpretation of it. I stick with what I said originally: we're fucked.

Science, by definition, isn't correct. This is why, contrary to what most people think, including those who wear suits and ties, scientists don't just all come to the same conclusions. I think you can agree with that because you use the phrase "accurate interpretation". The reason I'm saying your rationale here is utterly useless is that it's ignoring the epistemology of what it is to have an accurate interpretation of scientific data. How exactly do you know that your interpretation is more accurate than someone elses? That's the real question. Pointing to science and stating that you are correct really doesn't demonstrate anything other than that perhaps your understanding of science is misguided.

> Arguably, it is now worse than the Spanish Flu.

You're right, it is arguable.

> The 1918 pandemic killed about 3% of the world population, which COVID is unlikely to reach; however, some projections (on the outside) give about that many people that could be infected before this is over.

How does "worse than the Spanish Flu" precede this? What you just said here seems to totally contradict what you said prior.

SARS-Cov-2 doesn't kill everyone that it infects. Not even close. Given its mortality rate, the only way it could approach killing 3% of the global population is if 100% of people were infected, which never happens. Even if we saw a 3% global die-off, which won't happen in part because we seem to be keeping overall deaths down despite having sharp increases in confirmed cases, it disproportionately affects the elderly and those with preexisting conditions. The Spanish Flu, which is believed to have been a form of H1N1, disproportionately killed young people. I know this sounds callous, but a virus that spares the lives of people with more years ahead of them seems preferable over one that kills people in their prime.

I really would like to understand what your measure is that brought you to your conclusion that COVID-19 is "worse than the Spanish Flu" because, from most measures I can tell, it's not as bad. Are you judging this by the fact that the virus seems to be causing organ damage? I can kind of see that but my last point still stands IMO since those whom are getting organ damage are a percentage of ICU patients, something between 20 and 30 percent, which is large but that doesn't represent even close to a majority of people who are contracting the virus.

Don't get me wrong, it's bad, but somehow that doesn't sound worse to me than 3% of the global population getting wiped out. It remains to be seen if we will ever approach that with COVID-19.

> We currently do not know how many people will make it out with no scars, we may not know the full extent of the damage for another 10-20 years. The more we understand of SARS-CoV-2, the worse it looks.

That's totally valid.