4 ms·
That doesn't make sense to me. I would think you'd want to get to the point where you've reached the carrying capacity, so that "overshoot" of the equilibrium d
by zucker42 7y ago
That doesn't make sense to me. I would think you'd want to get to the point where you've reached the carrying capacity, so that "overshoot" of the equilibrium doesn't result.
- cryptonector 7y agoSee my other reply below. You can't overshoot 100%, and long before we get there herd immunity takes hold, and there's no question of the disease being kept from working its way through -- only a question of managing the rate at which it does. All in all the economic damage of continued shutdown does not make sense at this point (at 21% of the population exposed). We should stop now.
- zucker42 7y agoYour comment doesn't address my point. See this Twitter thread, https://twitter.com/CT_Bergstrom/status/1251999295231819778 https://twitter.com/CT_Bergstrom/status/1251999295231819778 specifically this comment: https://twitter.com/CT_Bergstrom/status/1252008040376614912 https://twitter.com/CT_Bergstrom/status/1252008040376614912 for a good illustration of what I'm talking about. Keeping the rate of transmission low through the peak can definitely save lives.