3 ms·

Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22535650 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22535650 Editing in response to the comments below ... This sub

Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22535650 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22535650 Editing in response to the comments below ... This submission is of a different resource. This resource goes into more detail about lots of things. However, the "Flatten the Curve" idea had already been submitted in the referenced submission above. It was less complete, but had already sparked a large discussion. So should the resulting discussion be started all over again here on this, more complete submission? Or should the discussion remain in one primary location to avoid repetition and to gather the insights, thoughts, rebuttals etc in one place? Who knows ... I provided the cross-reference to allow the decision to be made. This submission has now hit the top spot on the front page and is spawning a conversation. So the decision is made, and the cross-reference has been rendered moot. Further edit ... I think it unreasonable that the people who responded to me should be downvoted, and I've upvoted them in an attempt to balance that. I think the comments are fair and reasonable, and belong in the discussion.

throwanem 7y ago
That discussion revolves around a wholly different resource.
- ColinWright 7y ago
  Except that the discussion is common ... it's all about the concept of flattening the curve to reduce the peak and thereby not exceed the capacity of the health service. It's the same data, it's the same idea, it's the same argument, but from a different source. It's also all now all over the place ... I could find 8 or 10 different sites to submit, all with the same message. Is it useful then to have 8 or 10 discussion on HN all hacking over the same ground, all making the same points, all having the same "insights" and disagreements? I think not, and that's why I linked this submission to the existing discussion.
  - frereubu 7y ago
    I think you needed to give more context, which you might be able to do if you can still edit it. “Discussion” could mean anything.
    - ColinWright 7y ago
      Edited, but the downvotes continue, and it's all moot ... I'll not bother to muddy the threads further. Thanks for the feedback.
  - throwanem 7y ago
    I don't think you've looked at the linked page in this case. It's not what you think it is, and the difference in the two discussions also reflects that.
    - ColinWright 7y ago
      Now moot ...

throwanem 7y ago

That discussion revolves around a wholly different resource.

ColinWright 7y ago
Except that the discussion is common ... it's all about the concept of flattening the curve to reduce the peak and thereby not exceed the capacity of the health service. It's the same data, it's the same idea, it's the same argument, but from a different source. It's also all now all over the place ... I could find 8 or 10 different sites to submit, all with the same message. Is it useful then to have 8 or 10 discussion on HN all hacking over the same ground, all making the same points, all having the same "insights" and disagreements? I think not, and that's why I linked this submission to the existing discussion.
- frereubu 7y ago
  I think you needed to give more context, which you might be able to do if you can still edit it. “Discussion” could mean anything.
  - ColinWright 7y ago
    Edited, but the downvotes continue, and it's all moot ... I'll not bother to muddy the threads further. Thanks for the feedback.
- throwanem 7y ago
  I don't think you've looked at the linked page in this case. It's not what you think it is, and the difference in the two discussions also reflects that.
  - ColinWright 7y ago
    Now moot ...