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.

0
0

[–] heygeorge ago 

one infected person in a crowd to infect hundreds

Yes, which refers to when crowds of people were packing into interior spaces in close proximity on a regular basis, which was curtailed, and still has not returned.

We have also learned that transmission via contaminated surfaces is not as likely as was incorporated into modeling.

It’s like you have no clues hat you are talking about, yet you still think your opinion is smart and important.

0
0

[–] septenary [S] ago 

I think what I assume are obvious connections you're not making. So this is my last attempt - I think the IQ gap is too large to effectively communicate.

Let's say, theoretically, that the lockdowns had actually been really effective at stopping the spread of the virus. If that was the case, and only a couple percent of the population had been exposed at this point, what would you expect to happen when restrictions were lifted/loosened, and the number of people going out and their range of activities was expanded? (Which has happened in many states.)

You'd expect something noticeable to happen, right? You'd expect to see a big reaction in the data, comparing before and after the change in policy, right? There's still 98% of the population to infect in that scenario. The number of people hospitalized and/or dying to the disease should closely follow the behavior of the population in terms of how locked down they are.

So if that's not what the results show, logically, that means that theory can't be true. I don't know if you've ever played Sudoku, but the premise of the game is that you figure out what the value of an individual square is not by figuring out the answer directly, but by eliminating all of the other possibilities. In much the same way, while we have not tested enough of the population - and do not have a reliable-enough test - that can tell us most everyone has had the virus already, all the other possibilities have been eliminated by the data that we do have. So the one that's left has to be the correct one.