Replies

OK, I think we’ve both done a good job of explaining why we do the calculations the way we do.

We are both honest brokers in attempting to sell our methods to each other.

Neither has convinced the other.

I think we should just agree to disagree and let our grandchildren decide if either of us was right!

I’d rather tell one of the still sick that so far 98.7% of the resolved cases survived. You’d rather say at least 73.7% of the infected have already survived. Both are accurate. Either way the survivors will survive, and the fatalities won’t be complaining!

But your way does not give the most accurate to date numbers in which to calculate a worse case scenario. Yours gives the best case scenario. Neither are perfect, but in cases like these it's best to know the worse case scenario. Then you have an idea how bad it could be. I sincerely hope yours proves to be more accurate. But that is not the methodology they would be using at this point in time. Because using the worse case scenario gives you what the worse could be. More will be known when the still infected reveal their final outcome. Then the real best case scenario, as well as, the worse case scenario are known.

If your best case scenario does not pan out then everyone accuses you of not telling the truth. If you plan on the worse case scenario then you will not be caught flat footed. This is why I do not have an issue with the measures being taken. It can only hasten the flat line of progression. While giving the best case scenario you might lessen the fear & panic for the moment but as it worsens, which it would, then the fear & panic will ensue at that later point in time. So far the numbers still look good, and I truly believe a better case scenario will be the reality then my current worse case scenario points to. But panic is never beneficial in either scenario.

I believe that the cases are extremely under reported which is skewing the percentages. That won't correct itself until mass testing can occur.

I blame the CDC for this lack of testing, and the primary cause has been their foray into studies that are useless and offer nothing. Their mandate and reason for existing is just these types of events. They have no reason testing monkeys drinking alcohol for example and seeing what happens. Even I could have told them the monkeys would get drunk. Same goes for looking into why lesbians are fat. Because they eat to compensate for their attraction to the same sex. They know that their desires are not normal. Even if we accept their behavior it will not make them any happier. But this is exactly why the CDC has failed, not following their stated mandate and branching off into nonsense that helps no one in the long run.

Any way, let's join forces and pray that the good Lord will assist us in combating this virus. 8>)