I don't think you know the word "speculation".

I don't think you know what "generous" means.

Even if we take the lowest spread estimates, and the lowest death rate estimates and then asume every single resource is mobilized perfectly, Covid still wins if we don't have significant mitigation efforts.

I get why you won't address the substance and just say "that's speculation". When you look at the numbers and it's that obvious you have to avoid engaging with them at all cost.

And where did you get the numbers from? If its either the TV or the CDC, neither of them is trustworthy.

This post was edited by JessiWan on Apr 18 2022 05:36pm

Neither. I actually got them from the scientific literature at the time.

Is this the part where you now say the numbers aren't wrong, but also aren't trustworthy, and refuse to elaborate in any way

And where did the scientific literature get their numbers from?

I see that I leave a strong mark on your conscious mind.

This post was edited by JessiWan on Apr 18 2022 05:40pm

Observance of viral spread at every level.

If you estimate the viral spread rate based on indivdual cases (case studies) and look at spread rates within small populations (local studies, superspreader events, etc.) and also look at spread rates nationally (epidemiological studies) you can come up with a pretty good estimate of the spread rate.

That's what science does. It looks at ALL the data, not just data from one source or another.

I didn't ask for a lesson in science.

All I am saying is that when you say "covid would have overwhelmed the system", it is at best an educated guess, at worst it's speculation. You could employ the proper scientific method, however you could still be led astray because of the unreliableness of the source where you get your raw data from.

>Where did they get their data
>I didn't ask for a science lesson

lol k

It isn't just "an educated guess". It's an estimate that gives every possible disadvantage to Covid. It is the absolute most conservative estimate you can make. Meaning that it's all but certain to happen if we didn't give any kind of mitigation.

Lol. You thinking pointing out the possible unreliable-ness of your data is me asking for a lesson in science.



Your data could be wrong.

It could be wrong, which is why we take the most favorable end of every piece of data.

Meaning that not only would one data point need to be wrong, but every single data point would need to be massively wrong all in the same direction and by a huge magnitude that far outstrips any known source of error.

Sure, it could happen, but let's be real here. It didn't.

This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on Apr 18 2022 05:53pm