so, i've done a lot of rambling about this topic, and i just want to summarize and clarify my arguments and analysis and commentary, so that my position is clear enough.

1) the mortality rate of the coronavirus appears to be roughly comparable to, if not a little lower than, the spanish flu epidemic, which was a very bad flu year. i was always careful to qualify that i meant it was on par with a strong or novel flu strain, and i think the data has upheld the point. actually. however, it's important to point out that while the spanish flu had substantive mortality in young people, and was especially hard on children, almost everybody that dies from the coronavirus is over 60.

2) pandemics in and of themselves are not cause for particular alarm; we have pandemics all of the time. it's a scary word, maybe? it shouldn't be.

3) if you're a young and healthy person, the probability of contracting this disease and dying from it while you're out and about is in the same category of risk as getting in a car accident, which would be much less likely than getting eaten by a lion, back in the old days. we all have no choice but to take acceptable risks on a day-to-day basis in order to survive, or go crazy and lock ourselves inside.

4) given the truth of the above statement, my argument against social distancing was always related to the question of it's practicality, rather than it's theoretical efficacy. is it true that if we could imagine ourselves all just staying inside for the next 6-8 weeks then the virus would die? sure. but, how could you even imagine doing that? you need people to distribute food, you need people to deliver health care, etc; the virus isn't going to avoid these people just because they're labeled 'essential' or something. then, given that some spread is unavoidable without having everybody stay inside, what's the point of these partial restrictions? if a policy is likely to be ineffective, it should be abandoned.

5) if social distancing is in truth an unrealizable theoretical abstraction that can't exist in real life, then substantive spread is unavoidable, and measures need to be taken to adapt. these measures include ramping up the healthcare system to ensure it has enough equipment and taking special precautions to isolate the most vulnerable from the effects of rampant spread, most importantly lockdowns on long term care facilities. aggressive steps to adapt should have been adopted almost immediately.

6) as the virus cannot truly be stopped by statist tactics, we must instead wait for it to run it's course. only then will the number of cases come down.

7) in the longrun, this virus is almost certainly a new fact of life. if we will not take aggressive steps to protect the vulnerable from it, we will need to accept what will happen to them.

my argument against these draconian laws has been, from the start, that they are not rooted in sound science and are unlikely to work. i suggested some alternative strategies that i felt would be more successful, instead.

we can't know if my suggestions would have been more effective.

but, we can be certain that social distancing has failed, as any sober analysis would have concluded it must. nobody should be surprised that this didn't work. the lockdowns of vulnerable populations are coming, but they are likely too late, and they are happening in parallel with more general restrictions on everyone's freedom, which will be increasingly ineffective.

rather, the more substantive effect of these restrictive laws will likely be to slow down widespread immunity, thereby prolonging the process, and also spurring the virus' evolution, and consequently infecting more vulnerable people as it happens.

they're probably pushing 20% contracted in new york city, now. expect it to burn out around five to six thousand.

we thought we could control the spread of a virus. lol.

let me ask you this - might social distancing measures actually spur the evolution of the virus? if it's harder to catch, only the mutations most susceptible to contagion will...i'm trying to avoid using terms relating to procreation, or generations, as that implies the virus is alive, and that's a touchy subject, but the virus is rna, which means it exists in an evolutionary context, and it will evolve, it will adapt, to the environment. 

i do believe that there is historical data to suggest that a virus is it's most reactive, it's most adaptive, and it's most virulent, immediately after taking on a new host - this is a feisty little piece of rna, it just jumped hosts and it's no doubt got a lot more adapting to do; an anthropomorphized concept of rna mutation, but we do know that mutations do tend to be more plentiful around a speciation event, and in the populations most directly ancestral to that event.  

i'm going to write a bit more about this soon.

we should have spent our resources on special precautions for those that most required them.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/covid-19-singapore-symptoms-1.5518772