Will the Coming Season be Different Because of COVID-19?

[steelreserve]

The point actually is to change the number, not just spread it out over time. If everybody had COVID-19 parties like chickenpox parties in the 70's, then the death toll would be maximized. By putting measures in place to reduce the spread, it will allow time for treatment or a vaccine to vastly reduce the number of deaths as opposed to an outright strategy of herd immunity.

To date there is no vaccine for HIV virus, but there are treatments that allow people with that virus to live almost normal lives. The strategy at the outset of HIV and AIDS wasn't to tell everybody to go about reusing their IV needles, share them with other users and continue to have unprotected sex, especially if you are in a risk group.

What evidence is there that 20% of NYC had the Coronavirus as you mention? That would mean 1.6million people would be positive. According to Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center, the US has a total of 1.2 million cases to date. That is actual evidence here. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/us-map

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/23/n...rk-update.html

See above. Random testing of New York city and state. Very official and reputable. It would actually suggest more like 4-5 million positive cases, given that the population of NYC metro area is 21 million, not just the technical city limits which are 8 million. The entire point is that the virus is much more widespread than the official reported numbers and therefore orders of magnitude less deadly. Like, 0.1% instead of 4% or 5%. Similar official studies in California producing nearly identical results about the extent of undiscovered cases, though there it is more like 4%-5% came up positive in random tests and 0.1% or less of the population was "officially" diagnosed when they had active infections. Like, MILLIONS of infections, with the result being that it went completely unnoticed until they found evidence of it later through random testing.

All of this was widely expected by The Experts, since the main reason for getting tested would be because you had reason to believe you were infected, creating a huge selection bias. But the important part here is that is is simply not very deadly, and presents almost no danger at all to the vast majority of people. Meaning that the strategy of isolating the relatively small portion of high-risk people ought to be simple and extremely effective.

I do not even understand what you are getting at with the HIV comparison. Once again, it is completely backwards. You don't "recover" from HIV and come out with immunity. Of course it would be stupid to try creating a widespread outbreak of a chronic lifelong disease. It is the exact opposite of COID-19 or the chicken pox.

I keep saying it because it is true. Like an indisputable truth of how the world around us works. Almost all of the catastrophic models that you have pushed back hard against since the beginning were based on the scenario that there was NO social distance. We then social distanced...that totally changes the variables and therefore the model. Which is basically exactly what was said by most reasonable people. You are staking an odd position that you did some back of the envelope math that said if we did nothing the outbreak would be this and that. We then did something totally different than what you said and the outbreak somewhat met your guesstimate math. This is then used to support an hypothesis that doing nothing would have had the same result. If you can not see how that is flawed reasoning and connecting things that don't connect; there is not much else to say.

My counter to your repetitive gross misuse of math and statistics is not necessarily that you are wrong, but that if you have, in fact, stumbled into the right answer -- it is so far divorced from being due to the reasons that you think that it isn't even in the same neighborhood.

I've never contended that you, I, or anyone else can't understand this. The information is largely out there. The science is complex but not mystery of the universe stuff. The statistics are not intuitive but, again - not incalculable mysteries of the universe stuff. But I have continually attempted to reason and discuss that if you change one variable there is a cascading/ripple effect on every other variable and therefore each predicted/modeled outcome. This is basic experimental design/mathematical modeling stuff.

No matter how much you or I want it to be true; you can not say that the current infection rate, death rate, times the average person wanks it, or whatever that is being tracked with high social distancing would be the EXACT same with no distancing.

I can only believe that you refuse to acknowledge how math stuff works is that is allows you to gloat about how you were some visionary prophet that saw all this coming and us mere sheeple were unable to perceive the pearls of wisdom you laid before us.

Nobody is saying that, and nobody has ever been saying that. But you are still using the mysterious unknown to justify a position that is grossly out of step with reality.

There were grave predictions with no social distancing. Those were wildly incorrect. There were grave predictions that included social distancing. Those were wildly incorrect as well. There are real-world examples of both strategies being practiced to varying degrees, and every instance confirms that the no-distancing and full-lockdown predictions were both completely wrong.

To use your language, it is no longer a multivariate equation. The variables are being revealed, and they are all much lower than we were told. This comes as no surprise to me, as it should not to most, because it was obvious from the very beginning that the variables being proposed were preposterous by any standard, which again should have been obvious to anyone.

It is not that I am some visionary prophet - more like you need to be the opposite of a visionary prophet in order to simply go with the flow and shut up. But no, that's what everyone was shamed and silenced into doing, and look where it got us. You can rail against the evidence all you want, proclaiming a black box, but the outcome is the outcome. There wasn't a cataclysm and there was never going to be a cataclysm. The curtain is pulled back now, and people should be PISSED.