« First « Previous Comments 50 - 58 of 58 Search these comments
If that's how that article presented the 2nd peak, then the article was classic FUD. Nov 13 vs. Nov 27 was only 14days apart. Both dates belonged to the same peak in the graph, which was showing a second peak many months after the first peak.
I did not write what you put between quotation marks. See, Marcus, one thing about a person capable of independent thought process is that I do not regurgitate what other people say. In fact, I hadn't even read what you put between the quotation marks there. You will have to ask whoever wrote those to explain to you what he or she meant.
DO I have the following right ?
Well, I'll take this as a sign of where we are at in this.
Maybe it's wrong to put quotation marks around a paraphrasing of someones argument. How could it not be obvious that I did not think you said exactly that ?
I was paraphrasing. Was this not an indication of anything to you ?
Reality saysDO I have the following right ?
Was asking if if my paraphrasing is correct.
In any case, it's very clear where we are in this argument. "I hadn't even read what you put between the quotation marks there."
Gotcha, I'm done.
DO I have the following right ?
"The reason why it's growing like this now is that the hospitals are petri dishes for the most deadly strains of the virus. And since we have lockdown the population itself isn't out there as a buffer against the deadly strain(s) that's being shared by the hospital workers."
Marcus, you are proving to be a shameless lying propagandist with little knowledge in science or math but resorting to silly word games to facilitate your lies. At this point, I'm inclined to disbelieve your claim to be a public school math teacher, but likely a paid shill that one day may well hang upside down from a lamp-post if this lock-down continues for any significant length. To answer your titular question of the thread: the biggest error in thinking regarding Covid-19 is that whoever cooked up this hoax exploiting a bad flu season mistakenly thought destroying the economy under the pretense of a pandemic would automatically make Trump unpopular due to bad economy,
Schools should be open. Workplaces should be open. For anybody under 60-65,life should be normal
For those over 60-65, there should be voluntary "Senior Hours" at Pharmacies and Groceries the first couple of hours in the morning to give the old folks a chance and piss off hoarders.
No visiting assisted living, senior care facilities, nursing homes. They can set up skype chats. Retirees should stay at home, and there should be fines for repeat frivolous trips or gathering to play cards and shit for the elderly.
International Travel to places currently experiencing increasing levels or peak spread should be banned. It gets lifted a week or so after the trajectory clearly has plateaued.
Other than that, Life's a Bitch So Keep on Trucki
But when someone is too self absorbed to even care or listen to a person they are communicating with
I know you have neither the honesty nor the integrity to admit that I was arguing in good faith.
I found this video useful for explaining more of the viruses' lifecycle that we should be considering here.
Why the insertion of "petri dishes" and "buffer"? neither words I ever used, then for you to build your core argument on them being expendables therefore they'd all be dead by definition of being expendables.
« First « Previous Comments 50 - 58 of 58 Search these comments
But that was based on a low end of estimates, based on what will happen with social distancing.
The OP of that thread tries to put this in context asking a sort of concluding question - "was it worth destroying the economy for this, compared to bad flu years that we tolerate"
This of course begs a question. What would the numbers be without "social distancing"
One of the biggest errors in thinking about the CV is the assumption that eventually the numbers of deaths are the same, regardless of social distancing or not. That is, that when you flatten that curve that looks like a normal distribution curve, the area under the curve will be the same, since we know that the area under the normal pdf curve is always 1. I know I was thinking this way early in discussions about "flattening the curve."
In reality the number in the end would not be the same, unless perhaps through a series of recurrences, but even then, a year or two from now we will probably have a vaccine if not more effective treatments, if not sooner.