megaplayboy

Possibly.  But generally economies of scale and expiration of patent periods tend to mean that eventually treatments would become affordable to the masses.  
 
From a gaming standpoint, one could have an Everyman extended lifespan, 1 point(200 years or so), and then have Age: 80+ and Age: 120+ as viable complications.  It would also explain why everyone looks the same age in comic book universes, even when characters have been around 60+ years.  

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.07.082917v1
 
Summary: injection of blood plasma from young rats into old rats leads to substantial reversal of effects of aging.  
 
Obviously it's early and the results need to be reproduced, but I expect this may the first of many such breakthroughs along the path to real lifespan extension.  It's hard to conceive of something that would transform society more than both extended longevity and extended youthfulness.  
Thought I'd add a hopeful bit of news amidst a seemingly relentless nadir of bad news this year.

Invulnerability, in effect, is equivalent to "campaign damage classes" x 4(or better), plus perhaps knockback resistance = campaign damage classes.   So if a typical character has defenses = campaign damage classes x 2, and no knockback resistance, then the "value" of invulnerability  is equal to campaign damage classes x 2, plus maybe 10-20 points of knockback resistance.   If campaign dc  = 12, then that's 24 points(x 2 for both physical and energy), plus 10-20 more points.  60-70 active points.  At least, to me, that seems like a reasonable costing, assuming that said invulnerability will typically have conditions that limit the utility(i.e., things and circumstances under which it doesn't work or is less effective).  
So any mechanics you want to use to simulate the fx should have an active cost in the ballpark of 50-80 points, imo.  It could be extra rPD/ED, it could be damage negation, it could be damage reduction ala the APG, it could be my invisible DCV idea(or perhaps some funky version of missile deflection), it could be a force wall, absorption, desolidification, or even some weird suppression field vs attacks.  But it's a highly useful ability, a "stop sign" ability, even, so the cost should be somewhat prohibitive.   

Invulnerability, in effect, is equivalent to "campaign damage classes" x 4(or better), plus perhaps knockback resistance = campaign damage classes.   So if a typical character has defenses = campaign damage classes x 2, and no knockback resistance, then the "value" of invulnerability  is equal to campaign damage classes x 2, plus maybe 10-20 points of knockback resistance.   If campaign dc  = 12, then that's 24 points(x 2 for both physical and energy), plus 10-20 more points.  60-70 active points.  At least, to me, that seems like a reasonable costing, assuming that said invulnerability will typically have conditions that limit the utility(i.e., things and circumstances under which it doesn't work or is less effective).  
So any mechanics you want to use to simulate the fx should have an active cost in the ballpark of 50-80 points, imo.  It could be extra rPD/ED, it could be damage negation, it could be damage reduction ala the APG, it could be my invisible DCV idea(or perhaps some funky version of missile deflection), it could be a force wall, absorption, desolidification, or even some weird suppression field vs attacks.  But it's a highly useful ability, a "stop sign" ability, even, so the cost should be somewhat prohibitive.   

2 things:
"Herd immunity" involves having about 70% of the population previously exposed and effectively immune, so they can't pass it on and the rate of spread diminishes.
The WHO has stated that it's "not yet proven" that previous infections of COVID confer immunity to subsequent infection.  Until that's proven, herd immunity isn't even a thing.  
 
So we're far short of the infection levels necessary for herd immunity, and there's not even definitive proof we can achieve it yet.  A 0.5% Infection fatality rate would mean a million deaths if 70% of our population were infected.  Even 0.1 would mean 200k deaths.

It seems to be kind of a "postmodern" version based on 3rd edition.  The stats are presented in terms of what they do first.  The rules focus first on the genre, the conventions, character conception and using disads(situations) first to define the character.  If I had to venture any constructive criticism, it would be that there aren't enough writeups included for it to feel fully fleshed out, and that from the standpoint of "playing right away out of the box", it's less than straightforward.  Of course, I'm biased as a longtime Champions player, going back to the early-mid 80s.  I'll have to read it some more and mull it over some more to have a more fleshed out review of it.

2 things:
"Herd immunity" involves having about 70% of the population previously exposed and effectively immune, so they can't pass it on and the rate of spread diminishes.
The WHO has stated that it's "not yet proven" that previous infections of COVID confer immunity to subsequent infection.  Until that's proven, herd immunity isn't even a thing.  
 
So we're far short of the infection levels necessary for herd immunity, and there's not even definitive proof we can achieve it yet.  A 0.5% Infection fatality rate would mean a million deaths if 70% of our population were infected.  Even 0.1 would mean 200k deaths.

2 things:
"Herd immunity" involves having about 70% of the population previously exposed and effectively immune, so they can't pass it on and the rate of spread diminishes.
The WHO has stated that it's "not yet proven" that previous infections of COVID confer immunity to subsequent infection.  Until that's proven, herd immunity isn't even a thing.  
 
So we're far short of the infection levels necessary for herd immunity, and there's not even definitive proof we can achieve it yet.  A 0.5% Infection fatality rate would mean a million deaths if 70% of our population were infected.  Even 0.1 would mean 200k deaths.

2 things:
"Herd immunity" involves having about 70% of the population previously exposed and effectively immune, so they can't pass it on and the rate of spread diminishes.
The WHO has stated that it's "not yet proven" that previous infections of COVID confer immunity to subsequent infection.  Until that's proven, herd immunity isn't even a thing.  
 
So we're far short of the infection levels necessary for herd immunity, and there's not even definitive proof we can achieve it yet.  A 0.5% Infection fatality rate would mean a million deaths if 70% of our population were infected.  Even 0.1 would mean 200k deaths.

2 things:
"Herd immunity" involves having about 70% of the population previously exposed and effectively immune, so they can't pass it on and the rate of spread diminishes.
The WHO has stated that it's "not yet proven" that previous infections of COVID confer immunity to subsequent infection.  Until that's proven, herd immunity isn't even a thing.  
 
So we're far short of the infection levels necessary for herd immunity, and there's not even definitive proof we can achieve it yet.  A 0.5% Infection fatality rate would mean a million deaths if 70% of our population were infected.  Even 0.1 would mean 200k deaths.

2 things:
"Herd immunity" involves having about 70% of the population previously exposed and effectively immune, so they can't pass it on and the rate of spread diminishes.
The WHO has stated that it's "not yet proven" that previous infections of COVID confer immunity to subsequent infection.  Until that's proven, herd immunity isn't even a thing.  
 
So we're far short of the infection levels necessary for herd immunity, and there's not even definitive proof we can achieve it yet.  A 0.5% Infection fatality rate would mean a million deaths if 70% of our population were infected.  Even 0.1 would mean 200k deaths.

2 things:
"Herd immunity" involves having about 70% of the population previously exposed and effectively immune, so they can't pass it on and the rate of spread diminishes.
The WHO has stated that it's "not yet proven" that previous infections of COVID confer immunity to subsequent infection.  Until that's proven, herd immunity isn't even a thing.  
 
So we're far short of the infection levels necessary for herd immunity, and there's not even definitive proof we can achieve it yet.  A 0.5% Infection fatality rate would mean a million deaths if 70% of our population were infected.  Even 0.1 would mean 200k deaths.

FYI the rest of the Heritage Foundation plan involved "phasing out" Medicare and Medicaid, so the ACA is actually a vast improvement over the plan. it's also why I can get health insurance now, for the record.  Millions are still not covered, but millions more have gotten coverage (affordable coverage) as a result of that compromise legislation.  Incremental change isn't worthless.  

Ironically, the pace of change in 1776 was rather swift--we rebelled against a monarchy, set up an imperfect confederation, then drafted a constitution, with a bill of rights, all within a couple decades.  
That being said, when half the political establishment is dead set on going backwards in many ways, sometimes incremental forward progress is the best that can be managed in the short term.  All it will take, though, to break this logjam is a shift of a few percentage points in net political and policy preferences.  That could happen due to demographic changes, that could happen by younger voters becoming more engaged, or it could happen by attitudinal changes among the existing electoral base.  We might see evidence of the latter in this coming election.  

Ironically, the pace of change in 1776 was rather swift--we rebelled against a monarchy, set up an imperfect confederation, then drafted a constitution, with a bill of rights, all within a couple decades.  
That being said, when half the political establishment is dead set on going backwards in many ways, sometimes incremental forward progress is the best that can be managed in the short term.  All it will take, though, to break this logjam is a shift of a few percentage points in net political and policy preferences.  That could happen due to demographic changes, that could happen by younger voters becoming more engaged, or it could happen by attitudinal changes among the existing electoral base.  We might see evidence of the latter in this coming election.  

A Himalayan Griffon vulture...in battle mode | Chopta, Uttarakhand | December 2017
 

No, Piercing is.  The key point on a Hero killing attack is that nonresistant defenses don't apply for the BODY.  That's what Piercing does.  Destructive is for unusual, nasty damage...think lye or lab-grade nitric acid.  Some burning materials like napalm.  Many poisons...certainly a necrotic like brown recluse venom, probably hemotoxins too (rattlesnake venom).  Hard radiation damage.  Appropriate to now...lung scarring from TB or serious coronavirus infection, or for that matter, from long-term smoking.  
 
Piercing should be pretty common;  anything you'd define as a killing attack.  3 DCs of killing attack -> 2 dice + Piercing in Champs Now.  Destructive, OTOH, should be pretty rare.

As long as they're not making the vaccine...

As long as they're not making the vaccine...

As long as they're not making the vaccine...

45 is a painfully stupid person.  Not painful for himself, but for everyone else.  Unfit for the job in every possible way and on every level.  

45 is a painfully stupid person.  Not painful for himself, but for everyone else.  Unfit for the job in every possible way and on every level.  

When this is all over, many many thousands of totally avoidable and unnecessary deaths later, I hope that one of the questions Americans ask themselves is "Why, oh why, did we ever suffer fools so gladly?"

the linear trajectory may be misleading because we are limited by the number of tests available.  The death trajectory, sadly, will be likely the most accurate measure of pace.  The next 3 months will be a combination of boredom, depression and terror.