So let's try this again because a lot of people seemingly missed the point here and instead decided to argue over accuracy of 1%.
Here is what we do know: In the last month, NYC has had 2X the total deaths they had last year over same period. That's with a shutdown 3 weeks ago.
Here is what we do know: In the last month, NYC has had 2X the total deaths they had last year over same period. That's with a shutdown 3 weeks ago.
We further know that shutdowns do have a huge impact on reducing # of people who get the virus, need hospitalization, & deaths. How do we know this?
Because the virus has consistently shown exponential growth in those areas and then peaked 2-3 weeks after shutdowns. Every time.
Because the virus has consistently shown exponential growth in those areas and then peaked 2-3 weeks after shutdowns. Every time.
Even very basic middle school logic should lead someone to understand that if a certain % of people who get it will die, ensuring less people get it will ensure less people die.
And stopping all activity will inevitably reduce the spread so less people get it.
And stopping all activity will inevitably reduce the spread so less people get it.
Therefore, while we can argue about extent of the threat and what is the right solution, there is no disputing current course saved many lives.
Anyone who cites current projections (60K) to minimize the threat is not being honest with you. Period.
Anyone who cites current projections (60K) to minimize the threat is not being honest with you. Period.
That's not what I'm arguing with. We can definitely debate most effective solutions (1 size fits all = bad). My problem is certain clueless personalities w/ large platforms selling people on the idea that shutdowns were unnecessary and had little impact.
