3 ms·
> There's a lot of evidence about what worked what didn't work If that was true why can I take the population adjusted graphs for any interesting statistic, ov
by spookthesunset 5y ago
> There's a lot of evidence about what worked what didn't work
If that was true why can I take the population adjusted graphs for any interesting statistic, overlay several countries or states, and see the shape of them all is basically the same?
I would assert that for any of these non-pharmaceutical interventions to have been worthwhile the effect on such charts should be absolutely noticeable to any layman on the street. If you need PhD level math to tell a country who "did it right" apart from a country who "did it wrong"... it probably means that it wasn't worth "doing right".
- rtpg 5y agoThat's just not true? there have of course been outbreaks in many countries so the graphs _look similar_, but usually at totally different scales. Did you forget about the half-million dead in the richest country in the world? That didn't not happen, and is extremely different from other places.
- Wolfenstein98k 5y agoAdjust for population and the nature of the country (ie values freedom highly), and then testing rates, and you'll see it's not as unique as you think. Many other countries had huge death rates but didn't test much before and don't test the dead, unlike the States. Then control for age and obesity, the two factors that make a population most vulnerable.
- neves 5y agoThat is true and you are lying. Please show me a chart where competent governments like NZ, Japan, Australia, China and Indonesia are somewhat similar to incompetent ones like Brazil, USA or South Africa.