Originally Posted by
lazygun37
I'm sure you realize this, but this is completely avoiding the question again -- you are showing this plot precisely because you think it supports your assertion that "the outbreak/disease isn't all that bad".
I'll be more than happy to engage with that plot/data set (and indeed several others that have been mentioned in the thread recently), but let's do that separately. For the moment, I just want to note that this particular plot tells you literally nothing about the progress of an unchecked outburst. The comparison is between a prediction, in which the effects of social distancing are *modelled*, and actual data, in which the effects of social distancing are necessarily *included and observed*. By definition, neither can directly tell you anything about an unchecked epidemic. (The modellers own interpretation is that social distancing is working slightly better than their model predicted.)
So, could you please directly engage with the possibility -- even if you personally think it's remote -- that an unchecked outbreak would be really bad? As Bruno put it: "What happens to the economy after a pandemic goes spreading across the country unchecked?"