He's right- nothing is really going to protect us against exposure to the virus. If you are alive- you are going to be exposed.
Interesting conversation I observed. A woman in her office with the door closed to isolate herself from co-workers. A man of science knocks on her door and she lets him in while explaining why her door is closed.
He says "The virus is going to come in under the door."
I view the lockdown mandate similarly to socialism. If the idea is so good that it’s mandatory and that violent overthrow was the OG way to achieve the ends, then it’s a shitty idea.
If the virus was going to kill 2.2m Americans even WITH a lockdown (remember distancing was factored into the model, which was used to pitch mitigation), then you simply have to communicate to Americans that it’s that bad.
If it’s that much of a risk to all of us, why do we need a governor to lock us down?
The original model of 2.2m was off by orders of magnitude.
The “it’s just the flu” crowd was off by a little.
But the hysterical crowd is somehow now lecturing the “just the flu” skeptics as if their hysteria was justified. Because it killed more in 6 weeks than 5 months of flu season.
Another good point is that the flu has a vaccine to fight through and it still kills tens of thousands every year. What would the flu cases be like without the vaccine?
He's right- nothing is really going to protect us against exposure to the virus. If you are alive- you are going to be exposed.
Interesting conversation I observed. A woman in her office with the door closed to isolate herself from co-workers. A man of science knocks on her door and she lets him in while explaining why her door is closed.
He says "The virus is going to come in under the door."
"Joe's fingers will come in under your skirt."
Oh wait, different story!
I view the lockdown mandate similarly to socialism. If the idea is so good that it’s mandatory and that violent overthrow was the OG way to achieve the ends, then it’s a shitty idea.
If the virus was going to kill 2.2m Americans even WITH a lockdown (remember distancing was factored into the model, which was used to pitch mitigation), then you simply have to communicate to Americans that it’s that bad.
If it’s that much of a risk to all of us, why do we need a governor to lock us down?
The original model of 2.2m was off by orders of magnitude.
The “it’s just the flu” crowd was off by a little.
But the hysterical crowd is somehow now lecturing the “just the flu” skeptics as if their hysteria was justified. Because it killed more in 6 weeks than 5 months of flu season.
Right. But what about being off by 2.1m?
Another good point is that the flu has a vaccine to fight through and it still kills tens of thousands every year. What would the flu cases be like without the vaccine?
I'm getting the "distancing and shutdowns is the reason the totals were so low" excuse....
I didn't know that distancing and shutdowns and everything was factored into the model, is that true?
Yes, the Royal College model said 2.2m if we put these measures in place.
Talk about impossible for politicians to read that in the NYT and not care.
But it was a shit model built 13 yrs ago in C for modeling the flu. Dusted it off, and he won’t make the code open source.
Exposure is the protection. You want to protect grandma? Let everyone else get fucking herd immunity for fuck's sake!
Not really.
There is a new flu every year and yet not everyone gets the flu. Most people don’t have TB. Etc etc