Did you miss where I said “sure to increase” twice? We are going to be screwed even with 150 a day and 1 in 1000 infected. That’s one new case a week. With more than that there will be chaos.
I think I meant you had severely underestimated the threat. The numbers you posted extrapolated from the one case. You did mention “sure to increase” but I think you don’t realize yours is essentially a “best case scenario”. Sure 100 coming to the US per million of global burden may be “worst case” but the point I want to emphasize is that once our “defenses” such as they are have been overwhelmed worst case becomes best case in weeks. As Brad Thor pointed out the other day economic collapse occurs before “widespread” viral transmission. Does this aid or inhibit viral contagion? I imagine one would see several waves statistically like pebbles in a pond. A wave of economic collapse ahead of widespread contagion followed by a slower moving wave of near complete devastation due to inhibited travel but more certain contamination due to collapse of infrastructure other than transportation. This model sort of implicitly follows “one pebble into the pond”. This is also an erroneous assumption. As I said earlier we will soon be faced with dozens then hundreds, etc.
There could be events that alter things significantly. Fer instance let’s say that a market crash occurs in the next few days. Total social collapse ensues. Thousands if not millions of Americans die in the violence BUT NONE FROM Obola. The wreckage would be extensive but salvageable. The tragedy could actually SAVE the survivors from a greater tragedy, a relentless one.
None of us KNOWS with much certainty what the future holds but it is clear to anyone that is not absolutely delusional that those making decisions do not have our best interests in mind.