How about this simple one then...
Anonymously sourced memes using unaccounted for numbers for a figure any halfway informed individual understands we can't know the actual value of yet? No, that one doesn't work either...
Real information from legitimate sources preferred -- they aren't perfect but they're the best we have and they're a lot better than getting our news and knowledge from Internet memes.
Survival rate is an important number, and the best we can project thus far -- understanding that it isn't final and may go up or down -- remains about 99%, meaning an apparent 1% mortality rate for COVID-19.
That sounds great, and I'll take it over worse, but the facts complicate things. 1%, if that bears out, is ten times worse than annual flu averages for mortality. With sometimes significant variance, on average 40,000 U.S. citizens die each year from flu, per CDC.
If 1% mortality with COVID-19 proves true, that's 400,000 deaths annually. That's significant.
And 99% percent survival, again if accurate, doesn't account for what survival after COVID-19 means because we still don't know. There's evidence that for many it means nothing but back to normal. There's evidence that for some, long term and perhaps permanent physical damage may become their norm. That's significant, too.
That's very different and far more complicated than the implied binary of 1% die and 99% are fine.
We don't know what the long term implications of having had the disease are. We don't know what developing antibodies to it means yet, if they last, if immunity develops, or if it lasts.
Neither side in this rancorous debate actually knows the answer to a lot of important questions.
