Coronavirus Simulator - Understanding The Various Strategies

[Rigby5]

It's worth a try. Without investors there would be no business and no workers. It is right and good that such workers should suffer until they realize just who it is that pays their bills.

Where did you get the idea speculation pays any bills for those engaged in production?

The Incredibly Unproductive Shareholder

"Yes, shareholders.

"I know that we have all been trained to worship shareholders and to assume that their interests trump all others, but the fact is, stock-market investors have become, collectively, an extraordinarily unproductive force in business. Indeed, for the last two decades, their contribution to corporations has been literally negative.

Investors’ money reaches corporate coffers only when companies sell new equity, which major companies rarely do.

"Among the companies making up the Dow Jones Industrials, only a handful have sold new common stock in the last 30 years.

"Many haven’t sold any in 50 years.

"According to the Federal Reserve and the SEC, sales of common stock today represent only about one of every $100 traded on exchanges.

"Nearly all the money 'invested' in public companies, in other words, just goes from one speculator to another"

You're a commie. Why would I pay any attention to you.

You should pay attention to everyone because you need support to change anything, and I am an extreme leftist commie, and do not support locks downs.

 

[Rigby5]

You NEVER want to "flatten the curve".
It is always stupid to do that, and trying to flatten the curve just maximizes the death total.
Why? Because it delays the end of the epidemic, and that allows it to spread further, by giving it more time.
Whatever strategy you use, it has to be done as fast as possible, and you never want to slow it down.

The only two known strategies in history that have ever worked, are total quarantine or herd immunity.
Quarantine is best because it has the least death toll and works the fastest, but it requires contact tracing and it is likely too late for that.
Then the only strategy left is herd immunity. That is where you encourage local burn out of the virus by enough of the likely host contacts being already immune. That quickly kills off the virus as it can not easily find any new hosts that is needs ever 12 days, in order to survive.

So if flatting the curve is so bad and herd immunity is so good, then why did we not do herd immunity from day 1?
The answer to that was 3 mistakes in calculations.
Since we were not testing except those who felt really bad, we did not realize 90% of those infected were asymptomatic and not being counted. The lead to a lethality estimate of 1.5% that actually is 10 times too high. Also it was assumed there would be no one inherently immune since this virus was considered "novel". That is wrong because it is novel, but still only a hybrid between very old virus strains our immune system already recognized. So not only are most people inherently immune, but children seem to also be highly resistant. The third mistake was that we did not realize how it almost entirely was those over 70 who were at risk. We could have done variolation on young volunteers, and reduced the death toll by a factor of 40.

There are politics to consider, too. Democrats have pooh-poohed herd immunity from the outset as they wanted this to drag on. The data has been clear since February that over-70 are at greatest risk and under-70 less risk than flu. This knowledge was obfuscated for democrat political gain.
SARS-1 was quickly contained so it couldn’t become what this one became. China made sure this one became a political weapon by spreading it throughout the free world.

But the point is I am extreme leftist progressive, and am against lock downs.
Science has no political affiliation.
And since the whole world is making about the same mistake, you can't blame it on one party.
It has to be a common "feel good" hysterical reaction.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

It's worth a try. Without investors there would be no business and no workers. It is right and good that such workers should suffer until they realize just who it is that pays their bills.

Where did you get the idea speculation pays any bills for those engaged in production?

The Incredibly Unproductive Shareholder

"Yes, shareholders.

"I know that we have all been trained to worship shareholders and to assume that their interests trump all others, but the fact is, stock-market investors have become, collectively, an extraordinarily unproductive force in business. Indeed, for the last two decades, their contribution to corporations has been literally negative.

Investors’ money reaches corporate coffers only when companies sell new equity, which major companies rarely do.

"Among the companies making up the Dow Jones Industrials, only a handful have sold new common stock in the last 30 years.

"Many haven’t sold any in 50 years.

"According to the Federal Reserve and the SEC, sales of common stock today represent only about one of every $100 traded on exchanges.

"Nearly all the money 'invested' in public companies, in other words, just goes from one speculator to another"

You're a commie. Why would I pay any attention to you.

You should pay attention to everyone because you need support to change anything, and I am an extreme leftist commie, and do not support locks downs.

You should reconsider either your label or your other non-Wuhan-virus agendas.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

You NEVER want to "flatten the curve".
It is always stupid to do that, and trying to flatten the curve just maximizes the death total.
Why? Because it delays the end of the epidemic, and that allows it to spread further, by giving it more time.
Whatever strategy you use, it has to be done as fast as possible, and you never want to slow it down.

The only two known strategies in history that have ever worked, are total quarantine or herd immunity.
Quarantine is best because it has the least death toll and works the fastest, but it requires contact tracing and it is likely too late for that.
Then the only strategy left is herd immunity. That is where you encourage local burn out of the virus by enough of the likely host contacts being already immune. That quickly kills off the virus as it can not easily find any new hosts that is needs ever 12 days, in order to survive.

So if flatting the curve is so bad and herd immunity is so good, then why did we not do herd immunity from day 1?
The answer to that was 3 mistakes in calculations.
Since we were not testing except those who felt really bad, we did not realize 90% of those infected were asymptomatic and not being counted. The lead to a lethality estimate of 1.5% that actually is 10 times too high. Also it was assumed there would be no one inherently immune since this virus was considered "novel". That is wrong because it is novel, but still only a hybrid between very old virus strains our immune system already recognized. So not only are most people inherently immune, but children seem to also be highly resistant. The third mistake was that we did not realize how it almost entirely was those over 70 who were at risk. We could have done variolation on young volunteers, and reduced the death toll by a factor of 40.

There are politics to consider, too. Democrats have pooh-poohed herd immunity from the outset as they wanted this to drag on. The data has been clear since February that over-70 are at greatest risk and under-70 less risk than flu. This knowledge was obfuscated for democrat political gain.
SARS-1 was quickly contained so it couldn’t become what this one became. China made sure this one became a political weapon by spreading it throughout the free world.

But the point is I am extreme leftist progressive, and am against lock downs.
Science has no political affiliation.
And since the whole world is making about the same mistake, you can't blame it on one party.
It has to be a common "feel good" hysterical reaction.

I repeat my post about you revisiting your lefty agendas.
Democrats politicized this virus scam to the max. Why you support this corruption while recognizing the realities of this virus makes zero sense. Unless this is just a beginning.

 

[georgephillip]

You're a commie. Why would I pay any attention to you.

You might learn something?

 

[Rigby5]

It's worth a try. Without investors there would be no business and no workers. It is right and good that such workers should suffer until they realize just who it is that pays their bills.

Where did you get the idea speculation pays any bills for those engaged in production?

The Incredibly Unproductive Shareholder

"Yes, shareholders.

"I know that we have all been trained to worship shareholders and to assume that their interests trump all others, but the fact is, stock-market investors have become, collectively, an extraordinarily unproductive force in business. Indeed, for the last two decades, their contribution to corporations has been literally negative.

Investors’ money reaches corporate coffers only when companies sell new equity, which major companies rarely do.

"Among the companies making up the Dow Jones Industrials, only a handful have sold new common stock in the last 30 years.

"Many haven’t sold any in 50 years.

"According to the Federal Reserve and the SEC, sales of common stock today represent only about one of every $100 traded on exchanges.

"Nearly all the money 'invested' in public companies, in other words, just goes from one speculator to another"

You're a commie. Why would I pay any attention to you.

You should pay attention to everyone because you need support to change anything, and I am an extreme leftist commie, and do not support locks downs.

You should reconsider either your label or your other non-Wuhan-virus agendas.

No, liberalism is the idea of individual liberties being the source of all legal authority.
Government only borrows delegated legal authority by its defense of individual liberties.
Progressive means one who does not just defend the law the way it was originally written by the founders, but believes it needs to be changed as necessary in order to defend the inherent rights of all individuals.

So there is no conflict in recognizing that locks downs have never worked, do not work, are not working now, and are essentially murder by maximizing the death toll over the greatest time period possible.

No liberal could possibly support the inherently defective and failed lock down strategy.

 

[Rigby5]

You NEVER want to "flatten the curve".
It is always stupid to do that, and trying to flatten the curve just maximizes the death total.
Why? Because it delays the end of the epidemic, and that allows it to spread further, by giving it more time.
Whatever strategy you use, it has to be done as fast as possible, and you never want to slow it down.

The only two known strategies in history that have ever worked, are total quarantine or herd immunity.
Quarantine is best because it has the least death toll and works the fastest, but it requires contact tracing and it is likely too late for that.
Then the only strategy left is herd immunity. That is where you encourage local burn out of the virus by enough of the likely host contacts being already immune. That quickly kills off the virus as it can not easily find any new hosts that is needs ever 12 days, in order to survive.

So if flatting the curve is so bad and herd immunity is so good, then why did we not do herd immunity from day 1?
The answer to that was 3 mistakes in calculations.
Since we were not testing except those who felt really bad, we did not realize 90% of those infected were asymptomatic and not being counted. The lead to a lethality estimate of 1.5% that actually is 10 times too high. Also it was assumed there would be no one inherently immune since this virus was considered "novel". That is wrong because it is novel, but still only a hybrid between very old virus strains our immune system already recognized. So not only are most people inherently immune, but children seem to also be highly resistant. The third mistake was that we did not realize how it almost entirely was those over 70 who were at risk. We could have done variolation on young volunteers, and reduced the death toll by a factor of 40.

There are politics to consider, too. Democrats have pooh-poohed herd immunity from the outset as they wanted this to drag on. The data has been clear since February that over-70 are at greatest risk and under-70 less risk than flu. This knowledge was obfuscated for democrat political gain.
SARS-1 was quickly contained so it couldn’t become what this one became. China made sure this one became a political weapon by spreading it throughout the free world.

But the point is I am extreme leftist progressive, and am against lock downs.
Science has no political affiliation.
And since the whole world is making about the same mistake, you can't blame it on one party.
It has to be a common "feel good" hysterical reaction.

I repeat my post about you revisiting your lefty agendas.
Democrats politicized this virus scam to the max. Why you support this corruption while recognizing the realities of this virus makes zero sense. Unless this is just a beginning.

You have this backwards.
The fact current democrats support this defective and failed lock down strategy does not make it a liberal cause, but it makes current democrats to not be liberals any more.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

It's worth a try. Without investors there would be no business and no workers. It is right and good that such workers should suffer until they realize just who it is that pays their bills.

Where did you get the idea speculation pays any bills for those engaged in production?

The Incredibly Unproductive Shareholder

"Yes, shareholders.

"I know that we have all been trained to worship shareholders and to assume that their interests trump all others, but the fact is, stock-market investors have become, collectively, an extraordinarily unproductive force in business. Indeed, for the last two decades, their contribution to corporations has been literally negative.

Investors’ money reaches corporate coffers only when companies sell new equity, which major companies rarely do.

"Among the companies making up the Dow Jones Industrials, only a handful have sold new common stock in the last 30 years.

"Many haven’t sold any in 50 years.

"According to the Federal Reserve and the SEC, sales of common stock today represent only about one of every $100 traded on exchanges.

"Nearly all the money 'invested' in public companies, in other words, just goes from one speculator to another"

You're a commie. Why would I pay any attention to you.

You should pay attention to everyone because you need support to change anything, and I am an extreme leftist commie, and do not support locks downs.

You should reconsider either your label or your other non-Wuhan-virus agendas.

No, liberalism is the idea of individual liberties being the source of all legal authority.
Government only borrows delegated legal authority by its defense of individual liberties.
Progressive means one who does not just defend the law the way it was originally written by the founders, but believes it needs to be changed as necessary in order to defend the inherent rights of all individuals.

So there is no conflict in recognizing that locks downs have never worked, do not work, are not working now, and are essentially murder by maximizing the death toll over the greatest time period possible.

No liberal could possibly support the inherently defective and failed lock down strategy.

I agree with your definition of liberal and it is completely antithetical to today’s democrats. Your non-literal definition of progressive is really a euphemism for non-constitutional.
However, if you asked most of today’s self-proclaimed progressives they’d have no idea. They’d actually believe they are forward thinkers.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

You NEVER want to "flatten the curve".
It is always stupid to do that, and trying to flatten the curve just maximizes the death total.
Why? Because it delays the end of the epidemic, and that allows it to spread further, by giving it more time.
Whatever strategy you use, it has to be done as fast as possible, and you never want to slow it down.

The only two known strategies in history that have ever worked, are total quarantine or herd immunity.
Quarantine is best because it has the least death toll and works the fastest, but it requires contact tracing and it is likely too late for that.
Then the only strategy left is herd immunity. That is where you encourage local burn out of the virus by enough of the likely host contacts being already immune. That quickly kills off the virus as it can not easily find any new hosts that is needs ever 12 days, in order to survive.

So if flatting the curve is so bad and herd immunity is so good, then why did we not do herd immunity from day 1?
The answer to that was 3 mistakes in calculations.
Since we were not testing except those who felt really bad, we did not realize 90% of those infected were asymptomatic and not being counted. The lead to a lethality estimate of 1.5% that actually is 10 times too high. Also it was assumed there would be no one inherently immune since this virus was considered "novel". That is wrong because it is novel, but still only a hybrid between very old virus strains our immune system already recognized. So not only are most people inherently immune, but children seem to also be highly resistant. The third mistake was that we did not realize how it almost entirely was those over 70 who were at risk. We could have done variolation on young volunteers, and reduced the death toll by a factor of 40.

There are politics to consider, too. Democrats have pooh-poohed herd immunity from the outset as they wanted this to drag on. The data has been clear since February that over-70 are at greatest risk and under-70 less risk than flu. This knowledge was obfuscated for democrat political gain.
SARS-1 was quickly contained so it couldn’t become what this one became. China made sure this one became a political weapon by spreading it throughout the free world.

But the point is I am extreme leftist progressive, and am against lock downs.
Science has no political affiliation.
And since the whole world is making about the same mistake, you can't blame it on one party.
It has to be a common "feel good" hysterical reaction.

I repeat my post about you revisiting your lefty agendas.
Democrats politicized this virus scam to the max. Why you support this corruption while recognizing the realities of this virus makes zero sense. Unless this is just a beginning.

You have this backwards.
The fact current democrats support this defective and failed lock down strategy does not make it a liberal cause, but it makes current democrats to not be liberals any more.

You’re preaching to the choir.

 

[Rigby5]

It's worth a try. Without investors there would be no business and no workers. It is right and good that such workers should suffer until they realize just who it is that pays their bills.

Where did you get the idea speculation pays any bills for those engaged in production?

The Incredibly Unproductive Shareholder

"Yes, shareholders.

"I know that we have all been trained to worship shareholders and to assume that their interests trump all others, but the fact is, stock-market investors have become, collectively, an extraordinarily unproductive force in business. Indeed, for the last two decades, their contribution to corporations has been literally negative.

Investors’ money reaches corporate coffers only when companies sell new equity, which major companies rarely do.

"Among the companies making up the Dow Jones Industrials, only a handful have sold new common stock in the last 30 years.

"Many haven’t sold any in 50 years.

"According to the Federal Reserve and the SEC, sales of common stock today represent only about one of every $100 traded on exchanges.

"Nearly all the money 'invested' in public companies, in other words, just goes from one speculator to another"

You're a commie. Why would I pay any attention to you.

You should pay attention to everyone because you need support to change anything, and I am an extreme leftist commie, and do not support locks downs.

You should reconsider either your label or your other non-Wuhan-virus agendas.

No, liberalism is the idea of individual liberties being the source of all legal authority.
Government only borrows delegated legal authority by its defense of individual liberties.
Progressive means one who does not just defend the law the way it was originally written by the founders, but believes it needs to be changed as necessary in order to defend the inherent rights of all individuals.

So there is no conflict in recognizing that locks downs have never worked, do not work, are not working now, and are essentially murder by maximizing the death toll over the greatest time period possible.

No liberal could possibly support the inherently defective and failed lock down strategy.

I agree with your definition of liberal and it is completely antithetical to today’s democrats. Your non-literal definition of progressive is really a euphemism for non-constitutional.
However, if you asked most of today’s self-proclaimed progressives they’d have no idea. They’d actually believe they are forward thinkers.

I disagree that fixing the Constitution is non-constitutional.
While the founders wrote the Bill of Rights as just limits in the federal government, so that states would take the risk of signing on to the new constitutional government, it originally was flawed.
It left individual rights up to each state, to defend or infringe. About the only individual right is actually listed was that of a speedy trial of one's peers. It was not til the 14th amendment that the constitution was switched to imply a universal protection of individual rights, even from state or local abuse.
The pragmatic restriction originally on the constitution should not have been there.
It always should have codified universal individual rights, as it starts to after the 14th amendment.
And while that change is progressive, it is not non-constitutional. It is what the constitution should always have been, and what the founders always wanted it to be.
The founders knew that and wanted more of a protection of individual rights, but also knew the states would not allow it then. The question of individual rights had to wait until after slavery had been dealt with. And surely you must agree slavery was and is wrong? It should not have been possible under any sort of constitution really. And the founders must also have known this. So it is not against any founding principles to fix the constitution to what they wanted but could not have been allowed to do at that time.[/QUOTE]

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

It's worth a try. Without investors there would be no business and no workers. It is right and good that such workers should suffer until they realize just who it is that pays their bills.

Where did you get the idea speculation pays any bills for those engaged in production?

The Incredibly Unproductive Shareholder

"Yes, shareholders.

"I know that we have all been trained to worship shareholders and to assume that their interests trump all others, but the fact is, stock-market investors have become, collectively, an extraordinarily unproductive force in business. Indeed, for the last two decades, their contribution to corporations has been literally negative.

Investors’ money reaches corporate coffers only when companies sell new equity, which major companies rarely do.

"Among the companies making up the Dow Jones Industrials, only a handful have sold new common stock in the last 30 years.

"Many haven’t sold any in 50 years.

"According to the Federal Reserve and the SEC, sales of common stock today represent only about one of every $100 traded on exchanges.

"Nearly all the money 'invested' in public companies, in other words, just goes from one speculator to another"

You're a commie. Why would I pay any attention to you.

You should pay attention to everyone because you need support to change anything, and I am an extreme leftist commie, and do not support locks downs.

You should reconsider either your label or your other non-Wuhan-virus agendas.

No, liberalism is the idea of individual liberties being the source of all legal authority.
Government only borrows delegated legal authority by its defense of individual liberties.
Progressive means one who does not just defend the law the way it was originally written by the founders, but believes it needs to be changed as necessary in order to defend the inherent rights of all individuals.

So there is no conflict in recognizing that locks downs have never worked, do not work, are not working now, and are essentially murder by maximizing the death toll over the greatest time period possible.

No liberal could possibly support the inherently defective and failed lock down strategy.

I agree with your definition of liberal and it is completely antithetical to today’s democrats. Your non-literal definition of progressive is really a euphemism for non-constitutional.
However, if you asked most of today’s self-proclaimed progressives they’d have no idea. They’d actually believe they are forward thinkers.

I disagree that fixing the Constitution is non-constitutional.
While the founders wrote the Bill of Rights as just limits in the federal government, so that states would take the risk of signing on to the new constitutional government, it originally was flawed.
It left individual rights up to each state, to defend or infringe. About the only individual right is actually listed was that of a speedy trial of one's peers. It was not til the 14th amendment that the constitution was switched to imply a universal protection of individual rights, even from state or local abuse.
The pragmatic restriction originally on the constitution should not have been there.
It always should have codified universal individual rights, as it starts to after the 14th amendment.
And while that change is progressive, it is not non-constitutional. It is what the constitution should always have been, and what the founders always wanted it to be.
The founders knew that and wanted more of a protection of individual rights, but also knew the states would not allow it then. The question of individual rights had to wait until after slavery had been dealt with. And surely you must agree slavery was and is wrong? It should not have been possible under any sort of constitution really. And the founders must also have known this. So it is not against any founding principles to fix the constitution to what they wanted but could not have been allowed to do at that time.

[/QUOTE]
You confuse change with circumvent.

 

[froggy]

Just Mother Nature taking care of overpopulation problem, death rates up, and birth rates down. Just accept it and move on

 

[Rigby5]

It's worth a try. Without investors there would be no business and no workers. It is right and good that such workers should suffer until they realize just who it is that pays their bills.

Where did you get the idea speculation pays any bills for those engaged in production?

The Incredibly Unproductive Shareholder

"Yes, shareholders.

"I know that we have all been trained to worship shareholders and to assume that their interests trump all others, but the fact is, stock-market investors have become, collectively, an extraordinarily unproductive force in business. Indeed, for the last two decades, their contribution to corporations has been literally negative.

Investors’ money reaches corporate coffers only when companies sell new equity, which major companies rarely do.

"Among the companies making up the Dow Jones Industrials, only a handful have sold new common stock in the last 30 years.

"Many haven’t sold any in 50 years.

"According to the Federal Reserve and the SEC, sales of common stock today represent only about one of every $100 traded on exchanges.

"Nearly all the money 'invested' in public companies, in other words, just goes from one speculator to another"

You're a commie. Why would I pay any attention to you.

You should pay attention to everyone because you need support to change anything, and I am an extreme leftist commie, and do not support locks downs.

You should reconsider either your label or your other non-Wuhan-virus agendas.

No, liberalism is the idea of individual liberties being the source of all legal authority.
Government only borrows delegated legal authority by its defense of individual liberties.
Progressive means one who does not just defend the law the way it was originally written by the founders, but believes it needs to be changed as necessary in order to defend the inherent rights of all individuals.

So there is no conflict in recognizing that locks downs have never worked, do not work, are not working now, and are essentially murder by maximizing the death toll over the greatest time period possible.

No liberal could possibly support the inherently defective and failed lock down strategy.

I agree with your definition of liberal and it is completely antithetical to today’s democrats. Your non-literal definition of progressive is really a euphemism for non-constitutional.
However, if you asked most of today’s self-proclaimed progressives they’d have no idea. They’d actually believe they are forward thinkers.

I disagree that fixing the Constitution is non-constitutional.
While the founders wrote the Bill of Rights as just limits in the federal government, so that states would take the risk of signing on to the new constitutional government, it originally was flawed.
It left individual rights up to each state, to defend or infringe. About the only individual right is actually listed was that of a speedy trial of one's peers. It was not til the 14th amendment that the constitution was switched to imply a universal protection of individual rights, even from state or local abuse.
The pragmatic restriction originally on the constitution should not have been there.
It always should have codified universal individual rights, as it starts to after the 14th amendment.
And while that change is progressive, it is not non-constitutional. It is what the constitution should always have been, and what the founders always wanted it to be.
The founders knew that and wanted more of a protection of individual rights, but also knew the states would not allow it then. The question of individual rights had to wait until after slavery had been dealt with. And surely you must agree slavery was and is wrong? It should not have been possible under any sort of constitution really. And the founders must also have known this. So it is not against any founding principles to fix the constitution to what they wanted but could not have been allowed to do at that time.

You confuse change with circumvent.
[/QUOTE]

There are basic principles that should not be circumvented.
And I also like the founding principles of government being as decentralized as possible.
So we likely are agreeing, at least somewhat.

 

[Rigby5]

Just Mother Nature taking care of overpopulation problem, death rates up, and birth rates down. Just accept it and move on

But we have choices that can minimize or maximize needless deaths.
And flattening the curve prevents herd immunity from quickly ending epidemics, so then is the worst possible strategy.

 

[froggy]

Just Mother Nature taking care of overpopulation problem, death rates up, and birth rates down. Just accept it and move on

But we have choices that can minimize or maximize needless deaths.
And flattening the curve prevents herd immunity from quickly ending epidemics, so then is the worst possible strategy.

You have no control over death. When it's time for you togo you go.

 

[Rigby5]

Just Mother Nature taking care of overpopulation problem, death rates up, and birth rates down. Just accept it and move on

But we have choices that can minimize or maximize needless deaths.
And flattening the curve prevents herd immunity from quickly ending epidemics, so then is the worst possible strategy.

You have no control over death. When it's time for you togo you go.

We do have a choice when to end all epidemics.
If we adopt the strategy of flattening the curve, that we know is a failure and can never end any epidemic, then we needlessly maximize the death toll.
Herd immunity is how all established epidemics have always ended, and there is no other way.
So if instead of ending the epidemic, we foolishly try to flatten the curve, then the epidemic goes on forever.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Just Mother Nature taking care of overpopulation problem, death rates up, and birth rates down. Just accept it and move on

But we have choices that can minimize or maximize needless deaths.
And flattening the curve prevents herd immunity from quickly ending epidemics, so then is the worst possible strategy.

You have no control over death. When it's time for you togo you go.

We do have a choice when to end all epidemics.
If we adopt the strategy of flattening the curve, that we know is a failure and can never end any epidemic, then we needlessly maximize the death toll.
Herd immunity is who all established epidemics have always ended, and there is no other way.
So if instead of ending the epidemic, we foolishly try to flatten the curve, then the epidemic goes on forever.

How convenient.

 

[Mindful]

 

[theHawk]

A lot of stuff circulating on the internet right now about the various methods of potential action being taken and considered. Social distancing, shelter in place, total lockdown etc..

This article, which includes some simulators on various methods, makes some sense to me.

"Why outbreaks like coronavirus
spread exponentially, and
how to “flatten the curve”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/world/corona-simulator/

Make of it what you will. Thought I would post it, as it helped me to compare some of the various solutions based on a model of the spread of this thing, which seems to be a primary concern at the moment.

There is no “flattening the curve”, they lied to us about that too.

 

[Fueri]

A lot of stuff circulating on the internet right now about the various methods of potential action being taken and considered. Social distancing, shelter in place, total lockdown etc..

This article, which includes some simulators on various methods, makes some sense to me.

"Why outbreaks like coronavirus
spread exponentially, and
how to “flatten the curve”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/world/corona-simulator/

Make of it what you will. Thought I would post it, as it helped me to compare some of the various solutions based on a model of the spread of this thing, which seems to be a primary concern at the moment.

There is no “flattening the curve”, they lied to us about that too.

They sure did.