Comments by "Voix de la raison" (@voixdelaraison593) on "Ingraham: What is really essential?" video.
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
slugger mjb
I don’t totally disagree with your statement - but it is far more complex the either of us posted. If the number of carriers in the population is small, easily identified, and quickly pulled out of the population, then a Pandemic is manageable. If on the other hand, an infected person is not identifiable, is left to freely roam amongst a population, then you have an exponential problem.
For example, early in this Pandemic, an average infected person infected 15 other people. So you projected line goes as follows if left unchecked: 1, 15, 225, 3,375, 50,625, 759,375, 11,390,625, 170,859,325, 2.56 billion - exceeding our population. If the average fatality rate is 2% that is over 7,000,000 fatalities in America. Granted, this is a grossly over simplistic and extremely example, but sometimes simplicity and extremes drive the point home.
So how do you balance economic devastation with massive deaths, sickness, medical chaos, etc? I Don’t have the answer, but it will take a fine balancing act between listing to our scientists, rallying our people to support a plan, and some sacrifice. Unfortunately, our current leader is grossly ill prepared, emotionally unsuited, and not up to the challenge.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1