There are three basic flaws baked into this assertion which you pick up on the first day of epidemiology 101, but I don't expect you to pick up on them, based on your last dozen thoughtless and dismissive posts. God help your PCP. I know your exact type, and it's impossible to help you with anything because you already know it all based on a hunch. Why does anybody bother to learn anything? You should be your own doctor, lawyer, dentist, vet...
At least Fossil is putting some thought into the discussion. You're just all "nope. stop panicking."
I'll help you out. Look up "n" in the context of statistics, look up the taxonomy of ebola, and look up ed diversion.
I have nightmares about the guy with an A1C of 11 who sees no good reason why he should change his diet because diabetes runs in his family, so eating differently wouldn't change anything. Google told him that.
Ebola will never hurt us if every individual episode that makes it over here is dealt with what you would doubtlessly describe as "panic", immediately isolated, and it doesn't take place in a dense walking city. That's a lot of "ifs", and you would certainly still ***** about it.
As for what would happen if it went undetected with a week's head start in a dense metro, I recommend you do better than google, jim bob.
A bunch of the HIV public health moves in the late 80s and early 90s certainly caused a bunch of the same red-blooded macho dudes to wretch at the "pussiness" of it all. There was plenty of what could be described as "panic" back then, and now they spend $30 billion a year on it. 40 years after it broke. And that's with a disease that is way harder to spread than a droplet-based contagion.
And even still, every single advancement we made was met with opposition from people who just have a contrarian personality.
Like I said before, if the measures work, the thoughtless idiots will say "it was never a big deal anyways".
If many people die, they will say "they didn't help regardless".
We will never make everyone happy, and we shouldn't try to, because most people know absolutely nothing about disease.
What possesses you to think that the H1N1 from a decade ago is a good comparison? Even if we assume that half of the cases of covid 19 are going unreported, the mortality rate would still be literally 100 times higher than 2009.
I think now you're arguing just to argue.
I'm absolutely not claiming that you should stay in your house. If that's directed towards me, that's a complete strawman.
The advice about the large gatherings is a completely separate conversation.
If you still don't understand the "don't gather with 100+ people" principle, then this is never going to work, dude. The network epidemiology framework ain't that hard to grasp, and I believe that you're a thoughtful guy, so apparently you're just too stubborn to try.
