But what if you have those biomarkers that indicate you have a 90% chance of dying in 10 days... but you could be in the 10%... there'd be no way of knowing. So everyone with that marker would be left to die if there is a shortage of resources?

Sounds like another really good reason to flatten the curve when things go haywire again.

Well of course you always want to flatten the curve as it postpones acquisition of the disease until hopefully a treatment/cure/vaccine can be developed.

And hopefully the leaders will recognize the benefits of physical distancing and stay at home should the virus spread accelerate in the fall...if not sooner. As Michael Osterholm described it, we may have just dealt with the foothills and the mountain is still ahead of us.

Share, I thought the same. Although as a senior I won’t be given priority anyway.

If you have to ration resources, you do want to do it in such a way as to maximize the best outcome. I'd rather they parsed us by who they thought had the best chance of survival than just assuming everyone over 60? You're outta here.

I understand that,Annie. I’m thinking even if I’m not, statistically they will help the youngest people anyway.

Recently they've said that the over 100s has become the fastest growing segment of society.

Maybe there'll be a pause in that situation ... if more people stop taking the other precautions required originally as we are allowed to take the first steps from the quarantine to return to former operations.

You wouldn't dream of dropping feces, whether your own or your dog's, on my doorstep (though some neighbours are less fastidious about their dog and my lawn), or the more directly harmful damage of hitting me on the head with a hammer or a 2 x 4 plank.

The person who disputed the seriousness of the illness and had resented all the multiple intrusive restrictions over the recent extended period of quarantine at home wanted to be rid of the restrictions over which he had control along with the ones that society required, so when the first easing of restrictions began he chose to wear no mask when going out in public and to move close to others when convenient.

Unaware that he'd picked up the corona virus while being near a person carrying it a few days earlier, as he showed no symptoms yet, he wore no mask when going to the store or golfing today and moved near me.

If I and perhaps a half dozen other people picked up the virus from his breath, his touching a door handle or a orange and developed mild or serious illness or perhaps died, the probability that the heedless propagator would even know of it, let alone that it was his choice to disregard/disobey the rules that was responsible.

Rather like our choice to use our our phone while driving will likely not cause trouble - could be right (much of the time).

But the heedless, self-willed refusal to follow sensible rules, as distracted driving, or self-willed refusal to follow health rules .... can cause someone's/severals' death.

When driving our car - we and others learn who was responsible - when refusing to follow health directives, usually the one who sowed the rotten seed goes undetected by others, and the perpetrator almost always is unaware.

Undetected murder/manslaughter, right? And the slaughterer/murderer never learns of the terrible consequences.

I'd like to probably still be here to celebrate my 92nd birthday next year.

Recently found a package in my back door: "A gift for you from the MASKED ANGELS of Lambeth United Church" - a mask, with instructions on its care.

I was the initial kid to sing in their adult choir; sang with the sopranos, 79 years ago ... and other kids followed.

ole joyful

Sadly it's the "younger" generations that don't seem to be taking this as seriously as older ones are. I know there are exceptions, but I would say the majority who don't would be 40 and under. So they'd get chosen to be saved over someone older. : (