ST Alpha - "But that's precisely the point of what we're doing right now. Keep the numbers lower so that when you do decide to do something important, like, oh" (Reading a Post)

SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ

Down to Post

Backboards:

Posts: 158

In response to "The “eventually will become infected” number is another potentially alarming but plainly misleading number? 80Pct infected at the same time today? Fuc" by JackDawson

But that's precisely the point of what we're doing right now. Keep the numbers lower so that when you do decide to do something important, like, oh

Posted by Reagen Mar 21 '20, 10:28

I don't know, hold an election, that you can be reasonably confident it's not going to cause a giant spike in cases. (of course, alternatives for in person voting would be great)

Responses:

(Not sure how my post got interpreted as meh let’s not flatten the curve?) -- nm - JackDawson Mar 21, 10:33 2
- because I don't think "80 pct will eventually get it" is supposed to be alarming or misleading. - Reagen Mar 21, 10:35 1
  - You’re probably right that it’s not meant to be alarming but unfortunately without context it’s liable to get used as an alarming metric by panic - JackDawson Mar 21, 10:42
Right exactly - that’s what we are hoping to get to -- nm - JackDawson Mar 21, 10:33

Post a message top

But that's precisely the point of what we're doing right now. Keep the numbers lower so that when you do decide to do something important, like, oh

Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.