Rigby5
Diamond Member
Zerohedge
ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero
www.zerohedge.com
The author does comparisons between places with lock downs and without.
But it is much simpler to me.
If you wanted to make any epidemic last forever, just think about what you would have to do?
Since epidemics only end when the pathogen runs out of easy local hosts, in order to make an epidemic last forever, you would have to artificially conserve easy local hosts, so that the pathogen did not waste them up too quickly.
And that is exactly what the effect of "flattening the curve" must always have.
It guarantees an epidemic lasts as long as possible, possibly forever.
While the idea of "flattening the curve" naturally appeals people in the fact that reducing an infection rate sounds good, that actually is counter to science, which tells us that actually infection rate is irrelevant, and the only things that matters is time and how wide the infection has spread geographically.
The last thing you actually should ever want to give any epidemic is more time.
That ensures the greatest death toll eventually.
Flattening the curve is actually the single worst possible strategy anyone could ever have come up with, we have to learn from this to NEVER ever do such a foolish thing again.
Here is a graph comparing the UK with a lock down and Sweden without one.
Not a totally fair comparison exactly since Sweden actually did lock down as well, but just voluntarily.
This graph compares FL and CA, no lock down to lock down.