If they don't have something to fear then they don't have something to blame. It's all a big performance by activists masquerading as concerned fellow citizens.
You should read posts on r Québec about daily coronavirus cases and death(s).
Apparently we should lockdown again and shut schools again because cases are not at zero so we are obviously starting the second wave.
Cases are not rising. Basic hygene and masks indoors in public transports = trivial number of infections despite all activities resumed. We are NOT recrashing the economoc and social organisation again when we can mitigate like now.
But please ignore deaths are at 0 to 5 a day and that zero kid died from WuFlu and keep fear-mongering smugly every time a few kids at Summer camp get a fucking cold.
Sweden never shut schools and NO KID DIED OF IT IN SWEDEN.
Stop fear-mongering about kids. The seasonal flu is several times more dangerous to kids.
Oh I forgot the best part. "We don't know the long-term damage it does to kids so better not re-open schools."
We know. Kids brush it off like a commom cold. If these idiots had a shred of consistency and were not simply programmed to irrationally fear, their kids would have never had gotten into a school or public place during the yearly flu season.
I have yet to see anybody to a backwards looking analysis on covid related to the data we have now. It's obvious from that chart that the initial blue spike should have been 10-50 times higher, but wasn't due to testing.
Many previous models and predictions used relatively naive models of social contact that didn't take real-world social network effects into account. The node degrees tend to be tail-heavy (a few people who have a lot of contacts), the nodes tend to be heavily clustered (groups of nodes that have lots of contacts within said group but relatively few outside said group), the graph tends to have a surprisingly small diameter ('6 degrees of separation' - it takes surprisingly few hops to get from any one person to another), etc, etc.
So, what do you get when you combine this sort of network with disease models? Interesting behavior. The disease very quickly spreads to the most social people, and you get exponential growth for a while. But the interesting thing is that the disease ends up selectively pruning precisely those nodes that would help it spread between cliques. Which means that R goes down much faster than expected given the overall percentage of people infected, and often ends up hovering around a linear regime after the initial phase.
It would be interesting (although I doubt we'll ever see it) to study and see the responses to 'how many people have you had contact with in the past week' (or somesuch) for people infected with COVID over time. My suspicion would be that you'd see a similar 'rise near the start as it climbs the popularity ladder, then decaying over time' effect.
If they don't have something to fear then they don't have something to blame. It's all a big performance by activists masquerading as concerned fellow citizens.
You should read posts on r Québec about daily coronavirus cases and death(s).
Apparently we should lockdown again and shut schools again because cases are not at zero so we are obviously starting the second wave.
Cases are not rising. Basic hygene and masks indoors in public transports = trivial number of infections despite all activities resumed. We are NOT recrashing the economoc and social organisation again when we can mitigate like now.
But please ignore deaths are at 0 to 5 a day and that zero kid died from WuFlu and keep fear-mongering smugly every time a few kids at Summer camp get a fucking cold.
Sweden never shut schools and NO KID DIED OF IT IN SWEDEN.
Stop fear-mongering about kids. The seasonal flu is several times more dangerous to kids.
Oh I forgot the best part. "We don't know the long-term damage it does to kids so better not re-open schools."
We know. Kids brush it off like a commom cold. If these idiots had a shred of consistency and were not simply programmed to irrationally fear, their kids would have never had gotten into a school or public place during the yearly flu season.
It literally is the common cold, just a severe version of it.
I have yet to see anybody to a backwards looking analysis on covid related to the data we have now. It's obvious from that chart that the initial blue spike should have been 10-50 times higher, but wasn't due to testing.
The interesting thing is, that's arguable.
Many previous models and predictions used relatively naive models of social contact that didn't take real-world social network effects into account. The node degrees tend to be tail-heavy (a few people who have a lot of contacts), the nodes tend to be heavily clustered (groups of nodes that have lots of contacts within said group but relatively few outside said group), the graph tends to have a surprisingly small diameter ('6 degrees of separation' - it takes surprisingly few hops to get from any one person to another), etc, etc.
So, what do you get when you combine this sort of network with disease models? Interesting behavior. The disease very quickly spreads to the most social people, and you get exponential growth for a while. But the interesting thing is that the disease ends up selectively pruning precisely those nodes that would help it spread between cliques. Which means that R goes down much faster than expected given the overall percentage of people infected, and often ends up hovering around a linear regime after the initial phase.
It would be interesting (although I doubt we'll ever see it) to study and see the responses to 'how many people have you had contact with in the past week' (or somesuch) for people infected with COVID over time. My suspicion would be that you'd see a similar 'rise near the start as it climbs the popularity ladder, then decaying over time' effect.