0
0

[–] septenary [S] ago 

I posit that if you can't read those charts, you're beyond help. But I doubt you even bothered to look.

0
0

[–] heygeorge ago 

I looked. I even took a moment to comprehend. You cannot dispute my counterclaims, else you would. And if you wouldn’t, then discussion is useless anyway.

0
0

[–] septenary [S] ago 

What counterclaims? I didn't see anything to dispute.

Look at the chart, and then compare it to the mathematical projections with and without mitigation measures. With a sufficiently large population, the statistics will roughly follow the math - just like when you flip a coin enough times, you get very close to 50% heads and 50% tails, even though the results of any specific individual flip can't be predicted.

What we are looking at is data that follows the predicted curve very closely, and shows hospitalization and death rates far into the tailing end of that curve, approaching zero. There are no mathematical models that suggest we could get to that point in the curve, and then have a resurgence because people aren't wearing masks or crowding together too much. It's just not going to happen. And that's why even with an increasing number of people returning to their daily lives, the protests/riots, etc., the curve hasn't been affected in any significant way.

At the beginning of the outbreak, all it took was one infected person in a crowd to infect hundreds. And then each of those would infect even more and so on - which is why the beginning of the curve always appears to be parabolic, representing exponential growth in the number of infected; a chain reaction. If that was still the case today, if it was actually true that most people hadn't had it yet, all it would take is one person in all of NYC to spread the virus and recreate another outbreak. Just in terms of homeless people alone there are way more than enough people out and about to create and sustain an explosion of cases if it was at all possible for that to happen at this point.