>>11617187>cdc figures, not mineDoesn't matter, they are objectively wrong because they do not fit with observable reality. NASA can claim gravity is actually -50ms squared it doeant mean anything if reality does not reflect that and there is no actual evidence of such level or force.
>that's your assumption, have you actually worked out a model for why this is?Basic math and exponential growth would dictate this. This isnt a complicated question in this case. It's not something that was off by a factor of one or two, or delayed by a week or even a month, its something that's off by a factor of literally thousands of times in terms of case load or hundreds of years in terms of progression. It's so far off that it's not only not in the ball park, its not even in the same solar system. Like saying "our model of canine biology shows an average dog weight of 26 tons and average lifespan of ten thousand years" or claiming that the moon is 15 miles away.
The only possibly way an R0 of 5.7 would be possible considering the data we have collected in reality, would be BOTH if the mortality were actually LESS than the flu AND all the test kits were ridiculously inaccurate, which I guess is also possible, but that would not fit with the data from randomized testing and requires a lot of assumptions.
>different population density and amount of air travel, etc. there are a lot of confounding variables that can explain this.Occams razor points to lockdowns being ineffective, which would make sense with a high r0 value considering mass congregations were still in effect (supermarkets). That said Sweden did close schools and prohibit gatherings of 10+, so it's very possible that those 2 things are 99% of the benefit of shutting things down and that is why we are seeing so few cases. But in any case in not really interested in arguing the efficacy of lockdown or what policy should be as that is all contingent on the characteristics of the disease.
