I think this thread does a terrible job of explaining its point. I've no idea if it's accurate, but the premise seems to be that people who are highly likely to get the virus do more to spread it than people who are likely to connect with many people conditioned on getting the virus in the first place, with acknowledgements that the two labels are likely to co-exist.
Just throwing it out there, I think this is likely going to be true, and the populations with higher proportions of old people are going to see greater infection rates than populations with fewer old people. That is to say, those who are vulnerable to the disease have a greater likelihood of getting other people sick than people who are naturally resistant to the disease but will behave irresponsibly. If you had a city with nobody over age 50, not only would the death rates be trivial due to the health of the population, but the spread of the virus would be very small.
I also don't think the views here hold once a non trivial proportion of the population is infected, like we have now, so it probably doesn't matter and is hard to act on anyway.
Just throwing it out there, I think this is likely going to be true, and the populations with higher proportions of old people are going to see greater infection rates than populations with fewer old people. That is to say, those who are vulnerable to the disease have a greater likelihood of getting other people sick than people who are naturally resistant to the disease but will behave irresponsibly. If you had a city with nobody over age 50, not only would the death rates be trivial due to the health of the population, but the spread of the virus would be very small.
I also don't think the views here hold once a non trivial proportion of the population is infected, like we have now, so it probably doesn't matter and is hard to act on anyway.