Conundrum

There appears to be an inherent contradiction, at least in the memes, regarding Covid.

On the one hand, it's almost entirely geezers who die, and would soon die anyway, so why's the concern with shutting down? Let the real Americans go about their business; Covid doesn't affect real Americans.

The median age of patients was 68 years (IQR 52-82) for COVID-19 and 71 years (34-84) for influenza. Patients with COVID-19 were more frequently obese or overweight, and more frequently had diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidaemia than patients with influenza, whereas those with influenza more frequently had heart failure, chronic respiratory disease, cirrhosis, and deficiency anaemia.
...
In-hospital mortality was higher in patients with COVID-19 than in patients with influenza ...
The proportions of patients at the extreme ends of the age categories were significantly greater for influenza (8942 [19·5%] <18 years and 15 366 [33·5%] >80 years) than for COVID-19 (1227 [1·4%] <18 years and 24 242 [27·0%] >80 years)
...
In-hospital mortality was higher in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 than patients hospitalised for influenza, with a relative risk of death of 2·9 (95% CI 2·8 - 3·0).

NB: relative risk is multiplicative.

For hospitalizations, the 31-50 cohorts were: Covid - 16.8% Flu - 7.0%
For deaths, in-cohort, the 31-50 cohorts were: Covid - 2.1% Flu - 1.8%
So, in other words, Covid sickens and kills more breadwinners than Flu. And some folks wonder why teachers are leery about in-class instruction?

On the other hand, there are fully obvious superspreader events, beginning, at least, with the Covidiots of the DeSantis Spring Break.

So, how can both 'facts' be true? If it's just geezers who are at risk (which the data contradicts the 'common knowledge'), how can there be superspreaders that don't involve them? One might argue that Covidiots provide the vector to the geezers, but said geezers are largely dying in rest homes and nursing homes and such. A significant impedence mismatch is at play.

Further, and most importantly, why did infection subside to a plateau after previous peaks? Yet now we see a cliff dive? What is different? One might expect the wee little critters to continue infecting once established in a population. Why haven't all those meat packing plants in the Northern Plains (well, everywhere) simply been de-populated? They should, since no native immunity is known to exist in the population. Or is the data simply being fiddled? The wannaBePresident Huey Long 2024 Deep State aims to continue, at least until March, 4 when the real next president is inaugurated.

It is a puzzlement. I wish I had an answer that doesn't smell like a conspiracy. But I don't.

The preceding musings were written before today, and today offers some answer, not that I fully believe it:

"It's what we're doing right: staying apart, wearing masks, not traveling, not mixing with others indoors," Dr. Tom Frieden, former director of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said Sunday.

My skepticism is grounded in the simple fact that the Red state Covidiot governments haven't shown significant change in their mitigation requirements. On the other hand, viewing the NYT Covid page, shows that the Blue, high population, coastal states have dropped off the cliff, as well including California. Newsom is in for possible recall over his aggressive approach, well fumbling, too. Not to look a gift horse in the mouth, and all that, but decisions made based on data whose generation process is ambiguous are just as likely to be wrong as right.