This is a subverse designed to encourage adult discussion spanning the entirety of the political spectrum. All are welcome, from Libertarians to Authoritarians, Democrats to Republicans, An Caps to Anarchists, Socialists to Fascists to Communists, Green, Blue, Black, White, Purple with Yellow Polka dots, whatever color, persuasion, or affiliation, this is a place for you to post your thoughts, articles, and engage in discussion meant to foster understanding.
Politics is best when we try to avoid personal attacks, limits on discussion, censorship, trolling, shilling, racism, homophobia, antisemitism, or any other forms of bigotry and malfeasance.
Election 2020 Politics Sticky
Politics 2017 Christmas Theme sticky
Nov 2016 sticky on new CSS
This subverse belongs to the community of users. Users are invited to post meta-threads about v/politics and I will gladly sticky them. @flyawayhigh
Use the "Report Spam" link to report spam and someone will review the report. J-mods have the ability to remove duplicate noncommercial spam.
v/politics is for all politics.
v/uspolitics is for US politics only.
v/worldpolitics is for international or non-US politics.
v/politicalnews is dedicated to virtually censor-free politics and news
v/news is for news around the world.
v/usnews is for domestic news only.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] 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.
[–] 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.
[–] heygeorge ago
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.