2 ms·
I attempted to make an argument like that 2 weeks ago. I was using an estimate of 120m instead of the 146 that you quoted. And I'm just a dummy on the interne
by ifyoubuildit 5y ago
I attempted to make an argument like that 2 weeks ago.
I was using an estimate of 120m instead of the 146 that you quoted. And I'm just a dummy on the internet, so I'm probably at least a little wrong. But the gist was that if you could jab everyone tomorrow (which you can't), you might get a little bit of a benefit in the stats, but politically you'd be dead
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29914681 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29914681
There's no reason hospitals can't still fill up anyway if you have enough volume.
EDIT: I should mention that I really appreciate what you said above:
> By the way, I also don't condone harassment of unvaccinated people or vaccination as a requirement for employment etc either. Those are separate issues to me.
- srcreigh 5y agoI'm in Canada where the mandates are quite extensive but also change frequently. I'd like to think the govt is hoping that each time restrictions are loosed, some type of immunity has developed and restrictionz can be loosed more. When things seem to get worse and worse again, the restrictions are added to ensure hospitals can work. At the end of the day, a large decrease in severity will be the deciding factor. We can try to model when that will happen, but it will have to actually happen regardless of what the models say.