All it takes is 5% to significantly slow the spread. It was happening before US went into lockdown.
Printable View
Not sure why getting that one thing "wrong" makes it the "real crisis." Concerns about hospitalization rate were/are ultimately about deaths.
In fact, the NY hospitalization/death ratio ended up way down because they sent people home when they ran out of beds. And then lots of people died at home. That's exactly what we were worried about.
Also, I see you didn't agree to my "cure rate" wager. I'll take that as an admission that you agree you should just shut the **** up.
If I said that hydroxychloroquine would have a 100% death rate then I deserve condemnation.
We went into lockdown because of the hospitalizations. You know it. We all know it. It didnt come close to happening as designed.
Hospitals are going bankrupt the projections were so off.
You are such a liar, dude. 3/14-3/16 was St. Patty's day weekend. The bars were full. Like, we were there dude. I remember tell my friends who invited me out that they were being idiots.
If by "bad flu" you mean "1918 flu" instead of "a bad flu season" then once again you have wasted everyone's time by arguing in the dumbest way possible.
Yep. My school was definitely moving ahead of the rest of the city too. Within a week all classes were shut down and they were sending undergrads home. But it seemed to be happening really fast at the time, and people weren't taking it super seriously.
I think I was correct that just cancelling school events wouldn't have made much of an effect, but in hindsight the admin was definite not overreacting by moving fast overall.