the risks. Nothing about young people are less likely to die but may be left with permanently impaired lung function.

I think that was wrong, and the consequences have been terrible. It gave a lot of people a sense of false security, and so many didn't understand how viruses are even spread. So while I think a lot of college students showed reckless behavior. I also think that the information they were operating under was dangerously misleading.

A while ago, Lysol or Clorox (can't remember which) ran some ads showing how far a cough can spread through the air, and it was really effective. Something like that would be far more helpful.

cutting out the communication specialists from CDC who have decades of experience with this.

So, while it 'says' CDC, I think it has left a lot of very frustrated career staff mortified.

and made sure the white house/pence controls the message coming out of there. That's why doctors are saying that the actual death toll is far higher than the CDC is saying it is in the USA.

I went to their website and there, at the top of the page, was trump's "15 day plan" and a link to the WH.

haven't looked since. Hopefully after trump isn't president anymore the CDC can regain its reliability and standing.

and to get all my information from WHO.

Dying's certainly not equal. The demographics, even for the US, show the dominance of the 70s. But you can still die if you're young.

In fact "seriously ill" and "hospitalization" aren't equal. Younger = lower chance of hospitalization. It happens, "lower" =/= 0.

Even "getting sick" isn't equal. Just slide the entire range from "no symptoms" to "death" down towards "no symptoms"--lower rate of death, hospitalization, serious case, even sniffles.

Catching it? Yeah, that's equal, as far as I've read. Only idjits say the young are immune.

That's the risk of trying to highlight the risk to one group. Don't listen carefully, you fall into a nice binary opposition--all or nothing. And these are often targeted.

I view it like the voting material at the polling place in Vietnamese. It's not excluding me, it's targeting them. Doesn't mean I can't interpret it as excluding me and take offense--some certainly do--but that's not necessary and not the intent, so it's a wrong inference.

...and that requires EVERYONE do these things, not just those at high risk.

The ad is one of general information. There's no advantage in telling people at higher risk to social distance and hand-wash, versus telling everyone to do these things. Especially when one of our biggest challenges has been convincing everyone that they need to do these things!