3 ms·
Now you're being sensationalist - Those places that stopped their local epidemics were A) the first ones to have the epidemics, and B) took effective action to
by gamegod 7y ago
Now you're being sensationalist - Those places that stopped their local epidemics were A) the first ones to have the epidemics, and B) took effective action to stop it.
Saying there's "no visible end in sight" is meaningless in this context. If you model the epidemic, as many researchers have, you will see when the end of the epidemic is.
- paganel 7y ago> If you model the epidemic, as many researchers have, you will see when the end of the epidemic is. Do you have a link to a study of said researchers saying when the epidemic will end? I'm asking because I've been following this whole epidemic thing since just before Wuhan was put into lockdown, I currently live in Europe and I don't see us getting out of the dark with the current measures being taken.
- whatshisface 7y agoIt is generally accepted that the pandemic will end once just about everybody has caught it, because even those cases where people are thought to have re-caught it, if you assume they really happened, are a small fraction of the population.
- paganel 7y ago> It is generally accepted that the pandemic will end once just about everybody has caught it Yeah, that's probably how the Black Death ended in the mid-1300s, everything "ends" at some point, I was inquiring of the possibility of this "ending" without the obituary pages in local newspapers growing ten-fold in a matter of 7 or 8 days.
- jessaustin 7y agoYou didn't link to these many models, so I'll ask directly: when they model to the end, do 500M people die? Because that would be worthy of sensationalism. If instead, it's 1M people globally, I guess I agree with you.