Couldn’t agree more.
That’s why I wondered aloud why you said “These.Numbers.Are.Going.To.Be.
Catastrophic.
I’ve never claimed to have the answers.
I’ve only given my opinions (which I assume are welcomed on a democratic forum) as a 40-something who’s been around the block and watched the news whip everyone into a panic about hurricanes, Ebola, the swine flu, Isis, YOU NAME IT, only to have ultimately seen it blown way out of proportion time after time.
Reno. You're falling into the trap of saying you think social distancing doesnt work (or maybe you crazily believe that). Stick with the arguement that damage to personal freedoms/economic damage from social distancing is much greater than the value of loss of life. That's the winner here.
Stick with the arguement that damage to personal freedoms/economic damage from social distancing is much greater than the value of loss of life. That's the winner here.
That's the argument for why it's wrong.Reno. You're falling into the trap of saying you think social distancing doesnt work (or maybe you crazily believe that). Stick with the arguement that damage to personal freedoms/economic damage from social distancing is much greater than the value of loss of life. That's the winner here.
Okay, comparing vastly different eras is kind of pointless, but still. Arguing that our political leaders are willingly tanking the economy for no reason other than to save lives is ridiculous. They want to save the (long term) economy first.
Yeah, they want to save the economy by starving out the poor, keep the rest under tight control, and most importantly, pursue their imperialist, warmongering goals, with the help of a weakened and disempowered domestic populationThey want to save the (long term) economy first.
Yeah, they want to save the economy by starving out the poor, keep the rest under tight control, and most importantly, pursue their imperialist, warmongering goals, with the help of a weakened and disempowered domestic population
Dont buy it for a second. What electable officials do you know that look beyond the next election? You work in congress or the Senate and all you want to be is NOT the guy that killed grandma. It's not tanking to save lives, its tanking to stay in office. You can always pin the lost job on a faceless evil virus.
Except that it's probably not:
Social distancing won’t just save lives. It might be better for the economy in the long run.
A study of the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic finds that cities with stricter social distancing reaped economic benefits.www.vox.com
Okay, comparing vastly different eras is kind of pointless, but still. Arguing that our political leaders are willingly tanking the economy for no reason other than to save lives is ridiculous. They want to save the (long term) economy first.
Key word there is massive. They're set, their kids are set and thier grandkids are set. They're trading in something more valuable than money (which they have a "massive" amount of).
That's the argument for why it's wrong.
My argument regarding it working (and to what degree) is more of the question for analyzing the model
|
Let's see what the totals are after its all over. It might lead to a different time span, for one, they might be done earlyso using Sweden as your canary in the coal mine like you brought up.
What kind of results would sway your opinions on how social distancing works or doesn't work comparatively, as it pertains to it being useful for analyzing the model?
Does Sweden peak at levels 10x that of neighboring countries with very similar densities and demographics?