Herakles, Statistics can only confirm numbers (or at least quantitative data) but tell you nothing about how the numbers got them. People often use statistics to speculate and can be used to illustrate a point as long as you have something else to back your claims up.
But the 2% statistic can only confirm...well...that 2% of those who got Swine flu have died, right?
As for 'they probably have compromised immune systems', it's a bit of a generalisation, how do you know it wasn't the amount of exposure to the virus? Or how the virus attacks the immune system? From what I've read there's nothing to suggest what you've said. Unless you have any reputable sources to suggest otherwise.
Quote: "More people get run over by cars every day, so should we ban cars?"
Dark Coder called it retarded, but maybe I'll try to answer this one. Are the two matter alike? Do they correlate, lets look at some differences between swine flu and driving cars. Cars are beneficial. Swine Flu is not beneficial, it is a disease. Drivers have to abide by laws. Swine Flu cannot be controlled or influenced by laws. Cars don't kill people, just careless drivers or the mistakes of drivers or sometimes things that can't be helped. Swine Flu attacks the very insides of a person taking down their immune system, if successful it kills people, it is not carelessness nor is it a mistake it is just a disease so its 'purpose' if you want to call it that is to try and kill...though 2% successful in its attacks.
To say "do nothing about it" is to say "remove all road safety laws and safety precautions" (just to better use the car analogy) - after all 'road safety' is what keeps accidents down from what the potential is. If you really want to push the car analogy, think what they're doing right now is like enforcing road-safety laws and inventing the seatbelt. There is nothing to stop the disease from getting worse and taking more lives and have no vaccines means those who get it have more of a chance dying and if the diseases spreads or even mutates then it can be a bigger problem than it already is...basically if it is allowed to do what diseases are meant to do. Even the common cold and common flu have precautions and treatments. Swine flu is one that is considered to be a bigger threat to the immune system and is a threat that needs research in order to keep it from getting worse.
But why does something have to kill a load of people before its threat is recognised? In this case this threat has been recognised early on and it sounds like our governments are doing their job by stopping it from getting worse.
2% though for me is not something for me to be scared of, because the changes of me getting Swine flu at the moment are small and the chance of dying from it at the moment is small, and I'm more likely to die from something else, but not something that should just be 'left to breed' and logically increase that likelihood of me getting it and without treatment, increase the chances of dying from it.
[edit]
Seems like I'm rambling on, perhaps it is time for bed - I seem to do that when it's quite late.
