Re: [Phys-L] Coronavirus, Most Vulnerable Demographic

[bernard cleyet <bernard@cleyet.org>]

> On 2020/Apr/10, at 07:47, Anthony Lapinski <alapinski@pds.org> wrote:
>
> As was already discussed before, this is a physics listserv for physics
> teaching topics.


I wonder:  Is discussion of the course of the pandemic with projections, more suitable on a maths. list or a biology list?   The first post of note, that I remember, was a warning that online teaching would be necessary.  That, and follow ups certainly on list, but it spread to data of the course and analyses, of which I am also guilty,  but heck it’s interesting, and we’re all maths minded.  So … what about relating the course to vulnerabilities?  Obviously life style affects vulnerability.   Smoking, obesity, drinking, sarcoid (bc), age, lotsa items.  

However, as Todd P. wrote, the hobbyhorse has caused some "backs up".  Maybe, (I've not done a litt. search.) the so called gay lifestyle includes a greater proportion of vulnerabilities.  So what?   Surely many heteros also need to change their life style.  (bc is exercising more.) 

But I think Bill’s “life style” is not about vulnerabilities, but about religion and choice.   Sorry, there is absolutely NO evidence that it’s a choice.    There is evidence that it’s partially related to DNA and in utero environment, inter alia.  

bc  tried a sigmoid fit to CA deaths with no luck, then realized it only works now w/ cases.  In ~ one or two weeks it should be better than the simple exponential for deaths.  (Thanks to Brian and others.).  I didn’t try cases, because of their poor validity.  However, as recently, I think, there is proportionally more testing.  So the case reduction is “real”, and the err is in the other direction!   

p.s.  "The reason for believing it would be easier to be heterosexual is that gay people must cope with a lot of hostility and prejudice.”  

https://www.mentalhelp.net/blogs/being-gay-a-life-style-choice/.