very clickbaity so, and regardless of the validity of his numbers flattening the curve seems to be the best we can do at this point. the head of the swedish cdc condemns some interventions as being political opportunism (i.e. closing borders when airports are practically empty anyways), which i tend to agree with, while encouraging people to stay at home and away from elders. at this point i feel like people are more afraid of an eventual economical collapse than they are of the virus itself. and by acting accordingly, hysterically stockpiling, scaremongering and what not, they're contributing to the very same collapse more than the virus itself may be. this is what i'm afraid of.
however, to concede a point, yes––considering the size of facilities flattening might not be enough. at the same time, he assumes a normal distribution with "a steep exponential onset", which is exactly what flattening is supposed to counteract. a few paragraphs later he admits himself that "in reality, the spread of a disease does not follow a normal distribution". i mean, come ON dude. i'm not an epidemiologist myself, but he's clearly contradicting himself and what he considers the evidence. on top of that, he's manipulating the incline of his curves to support his point. i'm not sure he's actually using validated current predictions of epidemiologists, but his own slightly skewed interpretation of them. he even writes "my curves are not correct!" in bold italics.
and yeah, i realized i too sort of contradicted myself on that last bit. but while they're not necessarily schooled in the subject themselves, they're still poking holes in a lot of his assumptions and arguments. to me, that's having something valuable to say. i dare say not just the title is clickbaity, but the meat of the article as well. there'd probably be more professionally supported criticism of flattening the curve if he was right. but maybe i've missed it