Well, if the effect of disease transmission is independent of people having contact then it leads one to believe the tests are giving the same results whether or not any disease is transmitted. In other words, there is no disease but instead a test which give results with or without a disease.
Keep in mind, there are other reasonable explanations. Each one should be looked into and tested against.
if the effect of disease transmission is independent of people having contact
That's not what he's saying. Contact is required for it to spread. What the data seems to show is that regardless of how strict the isolation or how soon they start it, it still follows the same pattern.
I wonder how it would spread if everyone is in isolation though? This is what lead me to my conclusion.
It could be the month or two week gestation thing but why is it falling at the same rate regardless if people aren't in contact? I guess it could be by means (for example) through mail and people touching packages for delivery maybe?
And it begs the question, what is going on with these tests? And how are they determining a positive result?
I see where you're going but there never was - and certainly never can be - a situation where everyone is in isolation. Who'd be delivering the infected mail and packages? Who'd be packing items for delivery? Who'd be providing the items to be packaged?
Now, I have no idea what's going on with testing. When I got sick my doctor advised me to avoid going to the hospital for testing / treatment unless I felt I absolutely had to go. Hospitals are by their very nature places where it's easy to be infected with something. My neighbor was tested for it and it involved having a cotton swab shoved practically into his sinuses. Three days later they called to tell him he was negative.
Check this out: https://poal.co/s/conspiracy/163769
Where are The Oathkeepers when you need 'em?
(post is archived)