Once you start talking about stochastic processes, random seeding, and so on, you might as well wrap it up. For some reason "I don't know" is the hardest thing to say in relation to the obvious failure of this disease to hit equally hard everywhere it spreads.
-
-
Show this thread
-
Think about it like curve-fitting. The more parameters you add, the more closely you can fit any set of data points. Does that mean you understand it better? The namesake explanation for malaria was much more subtle and nuanced than the humble truth.
Show this thread -
In the history of human infectious diseases, no one ever lost a lot of money betting on simple etiology.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
It’s most likely outdoor temperature right
-
Yes, the disease strikes hard where the temperature is even, and goes into remission where it's odd
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
right now the thoughts I'm running with that seems to fit: -communal transmission (supermarket, subway, etc) is harder/rarer than we think -distancing, face covers, etc actually work pretty well and are all that the developing world has for resources so that's what they're using
-
-sustained tight quarters and constant proximity are where it seems to get big foothold (rare infections on subway lead to big infections at workplace) -a Certain Nation has made distancing and covers Cultural Battlegrounds, nobody else has, and this may impact them adversely
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.