3 ms·
> That's not a catastrophic failure at all; early (unrealistic, but that didn't stop our policy leaders from using them) estimates were forecasting 2.2 million
by ashtonkem 6y ago
> That's not a catastrophic failure at all; early (unrealistic, but that didn't stop our policy leaders from using them) estimates were forecasting 2.2 million dead, that's Ferguson's paper with a .9% IFR and 82% of pop. getting infected.
Honestly we might as well stop the conversation here. A quarter of a million extra dead isn't a failure? Wow. You and I just don't have anywhere close to the same values.
- __blockcipher__ 6y agoThe difference is you think that mortality is avoidable. I don't. We're talking about the US, right? You still think containment is possible in the US? I am absolutely baffled. --- You have used the classic rhetorical technique of those on the "doom" faction: take a well-reasoned rebuttal, and reply with a single sentence implying I am callous for openly discussing mortality. No, the callous ones are those that are imposing a dangerous and unprecedented regime of lockdown, and using fear and hysteria to do so. -- Also your math is just wrong. An extra quarter million? We already hit 130k dead, that leaves 120k left "to go" with your number.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]