the error that's being made in the underlying discussion around this is that we have a choice, and that choosing herd immunity is irresponsible when they could be taking more proactive measures to stop the spread of the disease. but, the empirical evidence makes it abundantly clear that there is, in fact, absolutely nothing at all that can be done to stop the spread of this disease.
i mean, if you can figure out how to stop this, then you'll have figured out how to stop the flu and the common cold, as well. i applaud you on your upcoming nobel prize. congratulations to you.
that boris johnson of all people is getting this right is no doubt an accident of history; the truth is probably closer to the reality that he's just lazy, and this is the easiest possible choice. but, sometimes fate can be cruel - and in this scenario, the easiest choice is the most correct one.
i need to repeat the importance of getting it into the heads of old people that this virus might kill them. and, it's important to keep gathering data, even if there's not much of an effort to contain. but, outside of those very targeted actions, attempting to stop the spread of this could actually backfire, if it just results in slowing down the rate of natural immunity and allows for carriers to linger on for months to come.
i'm going to post a slightly different graph. just let me get my laptop back up, first.