"New York City reached over a 25% infection rate and yet 99.98% of all people in the city under 45 survived, making it comparable to death rates by normal accidents. But of course the whole linchpin of the lockdown argument is that it would have been even worse without such a step. Sweden never closed down borders, primary schools, restaurants, or businesses, and never mandated masks, yet 99.998% of all their people under 60 have survived and their hospitals were never overburdened."
Cherrypicking numbers to suit one's argument is grotesque, at best. In NYC's case, what about people over 45 years old? In Sweden, what about those over 60? Why not use the same metric across all cases for a more robust (and legitimate) yardstick? Because that doesn't fan the agenda being pushed.
And so what if 99.998% of those under 60 survived? To suggest that's the only age group that matters is a digusting disservice to every single person. Your value as a human being is apparently predicated on your age, nothing more. What it says is this: Too old for the cut-off for 99% survivability? Too fucking bad.