Quote:
Originally Posted by Last hard class
I'm not arguing with the numbers. But I don't see where you guys have considered all the social fricking distancing and such when you do your comparisons. In other words, do you believe the infections would be the same if we were not social distancing? Nobody used to give a spit if there was a bad flu season. Take some robitussin and its off to work, vacation ect... .
LHC
|
I am not a medical professional....nor am I a statistical analyst...
My take here is that the social distancing and "wear a mask" is akin to "Stranger Danger" for children.
Family units are infected en-mass due to one member being exposed.
All "positive" numbers do not equal hospitalization. Hell, they don't even mean you have any symptoms
So imagine a normal flu season where mass numbers of people are subjected to a PSYOP campaign and have themselves tested out of fear and panic because some pet dander in their house made them sneeze.
How many people with the flu or common cold would be POSITIVE in this scenario?
On a bad flu season, I'd say the technical term is "one metric ass-load"... but it's a "normal" season so nobody give a rats' ass.
The current state of "Orange man bad" and politicians becoming crazed over the power makes it really hard to say what is real and what is made up.
As has been noted...there have been far more impactful infections in our history...but those occurred before the 24 hour news cycle and the hyper sensitivity of our society.
My personal take has been that outside of a 400 meter zone around my house I giveashit.
Stay safe.....