This is epicycles, my friend. Many places did everything wrong with great variation in outcomes. If you introduce a "well, maybe one person set off everything" exception, we are not explaining anything by import numbers. I'll end this here: you have no usable number for imports.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @Comparativist
Trey, your chart says "confirmed cases." It's staring at you. Honestly, I cannot say more. It's so obvious.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @Comparativist
Fine. You're happy with your explanation. The question had *nothing* to do with Korea HK Taiwan China NZ Macau (places we understand very well) and Vietnam and Australia (some). You aren't even getting *near* the question I'm asking except with assuming the answer. Good luck!
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @zeynep @Comparativist
"It may have been stochastic" has become everyone's favorite way of saying, "We have no idea."
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @JamesSurowiecki @Comparativist
It's amazing, really. Mysteries around. But the amount of assuming the answer that's going on is pretty striking. Will make a fascinating book one day.
We had exactly this for previous pandemics; they're tough puzzles but people stubbornly deny the puzzle while it's happening.0 replies 1 retweet 4 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
No, there is no usable data to use to examine the claim "number of imports determine severity/lack of outbreak" except through circular reasoning and assuming the answer--with a super-spreader exception to fill holes. I think I explained it as best I can.
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.