The data isn't all that bad, and most people are good deal more rational th an John Larkin seems to be, and quite a bit more rational than he seems to imagine.
They are doing Bayesian statistics. If you haven't killed then so far, or e ven looked as if you might be trying, the risk of you changing your behavio ur is lower than the risk of starving if they don't get the extra Fritos.
How? If they were "found" with those remarkably unreliable antibody tests, it's not a claim worth publishing.
t.
If it wasn't novel, we'd have herd immunity against it.
We don't seem to. When 87% of a choir can get infected, the chance that any of the remaining 13% wouldn't have got infected if the practice had gone o n for longer is pretty remote.
You may have an irrational desire to believe that the US hasn't made of hor rible mess of it's response to the Covid-19 epidemic, and that it isn't goi ng to go on killing Americans for months yet, but posting deluded misappreh ensions isn't going to make them come true.