And when the number of infected are still just fractions of the population I dont see how the final number matters if deaths are lower?
It seems like that is the next goal post shift.
15 days to flatten the curve turned into no deaths which is now no sickness. Ever changing standard the corona bros are using to justify the freakout.
It's a complete crap standard at that too. Except for pure statistical curiosity why would the number of sick matter? Hospitalized is a drain on resources and "serious" cases, that makes sense to worried about. Number of dead is obviously a worry and worth tracking. But with people working from home, and most of the infected not even knowing they are sick why does that matter enough to say X state is bad? Its informative but beyond that I see little value in the panic. We never worried about that before.
The reason we are told H1N1 was a bad reference was because Covid kills more. But if you look at sick/infected, which is the metric we apparently now care about, H1N1 was way way worse.
Pick a metric and stick to it.
I don’t know what you’re talking about here.
Are you complaining about goalpost shifts that you expect but haven’t happened?
I know you understand that different metrics are appropriate in different contexts.
The only true “goalpost shifting” that I have seen has largely been in response to the constant retreat of the deniers as they shift to some new metric and, once those numbers invariably go bad, people have pointed it out. (Like in early June when things reopened and cases were going up but not deaths. All you heard from the morons was that nobody was dying. Then, predictably, a few weeks later people started dying from the virus they had contracted weeks earlier.)
Based on what I’ve been told by physicians, death is not the only bad outcome from this. But death seems to be the only generally accepted bad outcome around here so I’m willing to have the conversation in that context.
Maybe you meant to include this in a response to somebody else or maybe you’re just ranting in general, idk.
Again Atlanta throws that whole thing for a curve. We are one of the world's busiest airports, yet alone the country's. Big metro area. We weren't hit hard or early. We opened up well before anyone else did, even Trump came out against how early we opened up.we had been open at least a month before they really got a hold of what Covid does.
And a good portion of the drop off in the areas hit hard are going to be from the natural virus curve, not anything they did. And for the southern and other states you see the exact same curves hit that the northern states went thru. Again natural virus spread. No one should be shocked by any of this.
First, it’s a correlation, not an exact match. Clearly, communities like Houston and Atlanta that still have large suburban populations had slower early spread.
Second, this is not how I remember the situation in Atlanta, at all. I definitely remember a discussion on here about an outlying community’s police department towing cars from a closed hiking area because they didn’t want a bunch of Typhoid Marys from Atlanta coming up there and infecting their community by walking around in the woods. So you are saying Atlanta didn’t have a bad outbreak early on, relative to what?
Assuming you’re correct, then you’re saying neither geography nor behavior make a difference, so explain why every state doesn’t look exactly the same in terms of viral load?
