What are the biggest errors in thinking about the Corona virus ?
invite response
2020 Apr 2, 4:35pm 7,368 views 58 comments
« First « Previous Comments 57 - 58 of 58 Search these comments
58
marcus
2020 Apr 4, 6:47pm
marcus
2020 Apr 4, 6:47pm
Reality says
I was only making a concise statement of what I honestly thought you were saying (i.e. a part of your argument) before refuting it (and I prefaced it with, "have I got this right?"). The purpose of those words was to paraphrase, it was my attempt to be concise and clear as to what I was going to refute.
I don't make rambling statements only designed to impress that are devoid of any logical content or argument . I needed to make my best attempt at understanding what you were saying before I responded. Being concise allowed me to clearly get to my logical point which had nothing to do with that choice of words.
Making a concise statement of what one believes the other is saying, before refuting it, is showing the respect of trying to understand the point the other is making. (and again, I did say, have I got this right ?)
As far as I can tell you are just floundering now in an attempt to explain why you spazzed out after comment # 46.
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.
I was only making a concise statement of what I honestly thought you were saying (i.e. a part of your argument) before refuting it (and I prefaced it with, "have I got this right?"). The purpose of those words was to paraphrase, it was my attempt to be concise and clear as to what I was going to refute.
I don't make rambling statements only designed to impress that are devoid of any logical content or argument . I needed to make my best attempt at understanding what you were saying before I responded. Being concise allowed me to clearly get to my logical point which had nothing to do with that choice of words.
Making a concise statement of what one believes the other is saying, before refuting it, is showing the respect of trying to understand the point the other is making. (and again, I did say, have I got this right ?)
As far as I can tell you are just floundering now in an attempt to explain why you spazzed out after comment # 46.
« First « Previous Comments 57 - 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.