Man dies from coronavirus after calling it a ‘political ploy’

Really, there were Trump flags at this party?
Cops bust massive, non-socially-distant party in Canarsie barbershop
By Alex Taylor and Vincent Barone

April 19, 2020 | 2:55am



I never knew that Jersey was such a pro Trump state.
It wasn’t the noise that made NJ cops shut down ‘Corona Party’ that brought warning from state’s governor

 

Giggles.
Keep a highly communicable respiratory virus spreading within a population for many months and hope to save lives at some undetermined future date.

Now that's funny

 

The "flatten the curve" graphs typically involve the same number of people being exposed in both scenarios. The difference is how quickly they are exposed. What is your rationale for arguing that it is more dangerous for the same number of population to be exposed more slowly vs the well-argued position to the contrary? Thanks in advance.

 

It saves lives every day.

 

Again, you don't appear to understand the argument being made. We're talking about roughly the same number of people being exposed. The difference is in the distribution of those exposures over time. I've seen scientifically literate arguments for why this is a good thing. I've seen none from your side trying to argue that this is somehow more dangerous.

 

so now your changing your argument to claim that more people will become infected, before you said the area under the graphs would be the same, which is it?

The only possible way flattening the curve could cause more deaths is that of the additional people who would get infected, the percentage who would die is more than the excess capacity due to not flattening. is this what your claiming because that wasn’t your argument.

 

Not so much 'dangerous', as prolonged. It's true theoretically, that it might be the same amount of people but over a period of time. The difference is that in the unmitigated example, it would spread quicker, and thereby more and more people get it(and thus, Herd Immunity can be achieved sooner.)

In the artificial flattening, because we artificially suppressed it, that means there's more of a chance to acquire new hosts. China is experiencing this(AKA: Second wave.). TLDR: Flattening the curve= Disease lasts longer. Accepting the bastard bug= Quicker, even if more painful for us in the short term.

 

These types of stories will become more and more common, especially with people out there protesting without protecting others.

I suspect in a couple of weeks we'll see a spike in cases amongst those out exercising their right to be foolish brats.

 

It has nothing to do with prolonged exposure. Delayed exposure is not prolonged exposure. And, no, it does not mean that there's a greater chance of acquiring new hosts. Both curves involve THE SAME NUMBER OF PEOPLE BEING INFECTED, just over different time frames. SAME NUMBER OF HOSTS, and the same potential development of herd immunity. The difference is that one is more dangerous due to the potential for overloading our medical supplies.Please, please start listening to what every medically educated person in the country is telling.

 

I said you wouldn't decrease deaths.
Read

 

That's a wild assumption