20,000 deaths

[unhappyclap]

I have heard on the news that if 20,000 people die from Coronavirus then they would have essentially done a "good job"...What I am confused about is, who do they expect these 20,000 to be? Will these people be those who are not currently social distancing? Those who are key workers and are still working?

20,000 deaths to me sounds horrific, we are already at over a 1000 which is far too many.

If everyone is at home, following the rules then who are the people getting the virus?

the Red Cross & Red Crescent has already warned about social unrest & violence in locked down European cities. Anyone who thinks it doesn't have adverse consequences is deluded.

It seems like the stats we get will never really be accurate if they aren't recording the deaths of people dying at home etc. I also think we should be testing more, especially for those who think they have already had it (2/3 weeks ago). I suppose it's difficult to know the truw numbers of who has got it and recovered if we aren't testing. I can't get my head over that, surely the answer is to test test test and then the death rate percentages would be more accurate.

I’m not sure if we know the full extent of this pandemic, the numbers don’t add up for a full lockdown even worldwide so far 663,000 deaths out of 7.5 billion people!

Actually deaths worldwide are 30,000 from Coronavirus, that is tiny amount of a population of 7.5 billion!
www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

And women are less likely to die of coronvirus by 50% if the numbers were the other way round, would the world be put into lockdown?

And women are less likely to die of coronvirus by 50% if the numbers were the other way round, would the world be put into lockdown?

@Gin96 of course not! Instead there would be crisis talks about how to manage the shortage of carers, child care professionals and cleaners.