As posted here 3 weeks ago, to much dismay and consternation of the know-nothings. Operative words: "Fewer people die".
"In this particular case, the models showed that if the virus proceeds along its natural infection rate, the healthcare system would very likely be overrun in the course of several weeks and more people would die than necessary, because many of them would be unable to receive appropriate care. The bargain you strike by flattening the curve is that, yes, the virus stays in circulation longer, and yes, this is sub-optimal, but the payoff is that the overall fatality rate is dramatically lowered because we have the resources to treat all serious cases according to best-practices, so fewer people die.
Grasping this basic premise isn't like understanding quantum mechanics. If you can't even "see a good reason" for flattening the curve, then you probably don't know what you're talking about.
Some people end up with less money. In return for that, other people end up not dead. That's the tradeoff. Not nearly as complicated as the know-nothings here (think "90Tiger") make it out to be.
You can certainly debate in good faith whether that reason is a good enough reason to have damaged our economy as we apparently have. That is an open question upon which reasonable minds can differ."
Edited by *M* at 15:55:13 on 04/09/20
http://tigerboard.com/boards/view.php?message=16873852Edited by *M* at 09:36:04 on 05/01/20