March 7 Entry Form.Doc: Fill & Download for Free

Shor Answer: Injudicious Act by U.S government and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.Long answer:When Wuhan began burning with infections in December, the U.S. government took only illogical, inadequate actions to stop the virus’s spread: It banned foreigners[1] from entering from China, but inconsistently monitored Americans returning from the country.The president laughed off the virus and the Democrats’ response to it, calling it their “new hoax,” which immediately polarized the citizenry’s response to precautionary public-health information.[2]The government dramatically misunderstood what was happening in America as the outbreak began.[3]The Coronavirus is very much under control in the USA. We are in contact with everyone and all relevant countries. CDC & World Health have been working hard and very smart. Stock Market starting to look very good to me!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 24, 2020Current Scenario: 69,120 Confirmed cases of Covid-19 in the US[4]Source: Johns Hopkins CSSE NoteDelay in testing:[5]When community transmission in the United States was discovered, and states and hospitals lacked the supplies to diagnose even a dangerously ill patient, it was spreading.When a week passed, and the market began to collapse, and the country had barely tested 1,000 people, it was still spreading.Even as kits started to trickle out, the CDC and many state officials clung to restrictive rules that allowed only patients who had traveled internationally or been exposed to a known case to be tested, even though the coronavirus was already clearly spreading in American offices, day cares, and movie theaters.Doctors and nurses with all the symptoms of COVID-19 were denied tests because they could not prove exposure. The virus was still spreading.February 29, 2020: The death[6] came at the end of a month that was America’s last chance at containing COVID-19. But it was too late. February had been lost.A week ago, an NBC reporter asked Trump during a White House briefing whether he took responsibility for the deadly testing delays. His reply was immediate: “No. I don’t take responsibility at all.”[7][8]I conclude, Mr. Trump and his advisors ignored the fact and they did not act at the right time so Coronavirus became an American catastrophe.Footnotes[1] Proclamation on Suspension of Entry as Immigrants and Nonimmigrants of Persons who Pose a Risk of Transmitting 2019 Novel Coronavirus | The White House[2] KFF Coronavirus Poll: March 2020[3] Donald J. Trump on Twitter[4] Coronavirus map of the US: latest cases state by state[5] How the Coronavirus Became an American Catastrophe[6] Washington state man becomes first U.S. death from coronavirus[7] Fauci Corrects NBC Reporter Wanting Trump To "Take Responsibility" For "Failing": I Was Talking About The CDC[8] See Trump's reaction when he heard one of his top docs was tested for coronavirus

Edit: Commenters have pointed out many, many ways this answer can be improved. Many of those deal with situations outside of this specific scenario, such as using special forces, psychological effects, etc. Those will be addressed in a Google Doc. To preserve the original answer, all other changes will be written in italics like this.Update: Psychological effects have been added at the bottom.There have been a lot of really great answers, but I decided I wanted to apply a little math to the situation. Below is the most complete explanation you could ask for.So, how many soldiers to kill all the Roman soldiers?Short answer:8,771 infantry, or one sniper with 500,000 rounds of ammo and enough food to last through the fall of the Roman empire.Edit: Actually 2,315 infantry; see the edits.Long answer:Let’s start with just one soldier with an M16 facing a big Roman army 300m away. According to this, a rifleman carries 250 rounds. If he was 100% accurate each time he shot, he could kill 250 Roman soldiers before running out of ammo and getting mauled to death - but soldiers and M16s just aren’t that accurate in real life. According to this site, modern riflemen are expected to have 10% accuracy at a distance of 300 meters. The soldier just shooting from there would therefore be able to kill 25 Roman soldiers.Edit: Many commenters pointed out how ridiculously low this is. According to Josh Rutherford, a marines veteran and instructor with many years of experience, it should be 80%, meaning 200 dead Romans. Ouch.But, the Romans wouldn’t be standing still, would they? In order to maul this guy to death, they’ll have to run 300 meters to reach him. There isn’t a lot of data on how fast Roman soldiers could run, but according to this helpful thread, modern reenactors would do it in about 2 minutes. If this seems slow it’s because they’re conserving energy for the mauling to death part. (It is really hard to stab a guy after sprinting 300 meters.) So this means our guy has 2 minutes to squeeze off as many bullets as he can before the army of pissed-off Romans gets to him.Based on the Wikipedia entry for the M16, the rate of fire for semi-automatic fire is 45–60 rounds a minute. I don’t know if this includes switching out clips or not; for simplicity’s sake, we’ll say it does. This means he’ll put 120 shots downrange before getting stabbed; using the accuracy of 10% from before, that equates to 12 dead Romans.Edit: 96 dead Romans with 80% accuracy.However, assuming the guy is 10% accurate even when the Romans are within punching distance is a little ridiculous. To represent his accuracy, I’ll use a linear regression to make an equation for a line. After that, to find out how accurate he is at any distance, all we’ll have to do is plug in the distance.I use my TI-83+ to make linear regressions. Here’s how to do that.We’ll need a couple points to start out with, so the calculator can draw a line between them and give us an equation for the line. We already have one point - at 300 meters, M16 man is 10% accurate; so when[math] x = 300, y = .1[/math]. I’m going to say he’s 100% accurate at 3 meters; this gives us our second point, [math]x = 3, y = 1[/math]. My calc told me [math]-.003x+1.009[/math] is the formula for the line between those two points.Edit:[math] -.0007x+1.002 [/math] with 80% accuracy.Now we can guess how accurate the M16 guy is at any range - but this doesn’t account for the fact that the Roman soldiers are moving towards him. If we had a formula to predict where the Roman soldiers were at a certain time [math]t[/math], we could just stick that formula in for the x, and then we’d have a master formula where we could plug in any time [math]t[/math] and know how accurate the M16 guy is at that time.If the Roman soldiers are running at a constant speed for the whole two minutes, this is actually really easy. Since they’re running across 300 meters in 2 minutes, their speed is 2.5 meters per second. For every second that goes by, they’ll be 2.5 meters closer to M16 man. This means that the distance the Romans are from him will equal [math]300 - 2.5t[/math], where t is how many seconds have passed.Now we can just plop that formula into the formula the calc gave me; doing this, we end up with[math] -.003(300-2.5t)+1.009[/math]. So now we know how accurate the guy is at any time.Edit: [math]-.0007(300-2.5t)+1.002[/math] with 80% accuracy.At t = 0 seconds, using our formula above, M16 man has an accuracy of 10.9%. Since he’s only shooting once a second, this means .109 dead Romans.At t = 1 seconds, M16 man’s accuracy goes up to 11.65%. This means so far he has killed [math].109 + .1165 = .2255[/math] Romans.(If these decimals don’t make sense, think of how it happens in real life. If the guy takes, say, nine shots to kill one Roman, nine seconds have gone by; if you then looked at the average accuracy for each second, it would be pretty close to these decimal numbers. So totaling up these decimal numbers for nine seconds would give you one dead Roman, more or less.)Calculus students know what’s coming. If we work out the M16 guy’s accuracy at each second from 0 to 120 and total them all up, we’ll know how many Romans he can kill before they get to him. Using only algebra, this is a lot of work; however, calculus has a handy tool for adding things up called the integral. I’m not going to give a calculus lesson here, but in short, the integral is used to add up values at every instant of an equation, and then give us a final answer.Doing integrals by hand is usually fun, but since our formula has lots of weird decimals it won’t be here, so I’m just going to use the good old TI-83+ again. If you hit the MATH button and hit option 9, fnInt( appears on the screen. First I’ll type the equation we came up with earlier (without the y=); then we’ll need to let the calculator know what variable we’re using, in our case t; then we need to tell it when to start adding up and when to stop. Since it will take the Romans 2 minutes to run, we’ll have the calculator start at 0 and stop at 120 seconds. Your end result should look like fnInt([math]-.003(300-2.5t)+1.009,t,0,120)[/math], if you’re following along. Hit enter and you’ll get around 67. That’s how many Romans our guy can kill.Edit: Simon Holzman pointed out that you don’t actually need a calculator to get a number near 67: since the accuracy increases linearly from 10% to 100%, the average accuracy is 55%, which means .55 * 120 shots (the amount he’ll get off before the Romans arrive) = 66 Roman soldiers. Much easier than a linear regression.Another Edit: Using the formula for 80% accuracy at 300 meters gives us 108 kills. Using Holzman’s method gives the same result.Sadly, battles aren’t usually that simple. There are a few things we haven’t answered yet:What if the Romans were in testudo formation?The M16’s automatic fire setting?Grenades?Pilums?I’ll now answer each of these.Testudo formationWhen the Romans get into Testudo formation, as opposed to just a bunch of scattered soldiers running across a field, there are three main differences:They’ll slow down a lotThey’ll have shields to block bulletsThey’ll present a much easier targetFirst, speed. According to the site used earlier for Romans’ running speed, it was hard for the reenactors to hold the testudo formation much faster than a slow march. It’s hard to say exactly what a “slow march” is, but we can make a good guess based on current army marching speeds.The US Army’s marching speed found here is about 5.5 km/h. I think it’s optimistic to assume the Romans could do 2/3 of that in Testudo - about 3.67 km/h, or roughly 1 m/s. This changes our equation from earlier to [math]-.003(300-1t)+1.009[/math], replacing the 2.5 with our new 1 m/s speed. This also means that the Romans will take 5 minutes to cross the field instead of 2.This means our guy, shooting 60 rounds a minute, will run out of ammo after 4 minutes and 10 seconds, leaving him with 50 seconds to contemplate how he got there before being stabbed to death by hundreds of angry Romans.Integrating our equation again, this time from 0 to 250 seconds (when he runs out of ammo), gives us about 120 dead Romans, far more than the 67 when they’re not in formation.But what about their shields?According to a very in-depth site on how to make Roman shields, the thickest Roman shields were about 1/2 inch thick and made of wood. Here’s a picture:That metal thing in the middle is called a “boss”. The site suggests using 12 or 18-gauge steel to make the boss, but also suggests that if you’re going to use your shield for combat, you’ll need thicker steel.The thickest steel gauge on this table is 0000000 gauge, which is 12.7 mm thick, or half an inch. This might be too thick to hammer into a dome, but I have zero experience with metalworking, so I’m just going to go with it.Also, according to this site, Roman armor was never more than 1mm thick. So the maximum total protection in front of a soldier would either be 12.7 mm of wood plus 1 mm of steel, or 12.7 mm plus 1 mm of steel.From what I gather, most modern weapons can rip through anything that’s not armor - things like bricks, sandbags, and wood - as easily as cutting butter. So the wood part of the shield won’t do anything to stop a bullet. That same site says that bullets used in assault rifles like the M16 are designed to punch through 1/8 inch or 3.2mm of steel at a distance of 600 meters. This is definitely enough to cut through the armor, but not enough to cut through the 12.7mm boss (if it would really be that thick).Penetration, though, like accuracy, gets bigger the closer you get to the target. This Wikipedia page has a big table full of penetration statistics for the AK-47 and the M16. According to that, the M16 can make it through 3.8 mm of steel at 100 meters. That’s not much of a difference from the 3.2 mm at 600 meters, so I think it’s safe to say that the M16 round would never make it through half an inch of steel.This means there is a big spot in the middle of the target that our M16 guy needs to avoid hitting in order to kill the Roman soldiers. This will affect his accuracy.If M16 man is 10% accurate at hitting a man-sized target at 300 meters, some simple math will show us just how much the boss affects his accuracy. The picture below illustrates that (thankfully) the Romans’ shields were about the same size as Roman soldiers, which means there will be basically no difference in accuracy between shooting at a Roman soldier or shooting at a Roman soldier hiding behind a shield.Side note: What about the legs? The shields don’t cover the legs.Take a look at this:Notice, none of those targets have legs. Our M16 guy has been trained to shoot the torso, not the legs. So we can completely ignore them, as if the Romans are just floating, angry pieces of meat covered with armor and holding shields.Back to the shields. The Wikipedia page for Roman shields says they’re 105.5 cm by 41 cm, which gives us a target area of 4,325 square cm. That page about building shields says the boss has a 5 inch diameter; the formula for area of a circle [math]A = pi*r^2[/math] gives the boss an area of 78.5 square cm. This means the area M16 guy has to hit is 4,325 - 78.5 = 4,246 square cm. This is [math]4246/4325 = 98%[/math] of the original target area.If we say M16 guy is 10% accurate when shooting at the original area, then it follows that he’s 9.8% accurate shooting at a scutum. This isn’t enough of a difference to change our equation from before, which means that shield or no shield, 67 Roman soldiers are dying before they get to stab M16 guy.Edit: If M16 guy is 80% accurate, then he’s 78% accurate when shooting at a scutum. Holzman’s method says 107 soldiers die instead of 108 from earlier; not a huge difference, but important nonetheless.However, earlier I said the Testudo formation presents an easier target. If you look at the picture above again, you’ll quickly see why: even if the M16 guy misses one Roman, it’s very likely he’ll still hit another Roman.6 Romans standing in a line, plus one sideways-standing guy on each side (I’ll count them as 1/2 the normal area, for simplicity) like in the picture means 7 times as much target area, which means 70% accuracy instead of 10.Edit: Or 100% accuracy, if our guy is 80% accurate at 300 meters.There are around 30 soldiers in the formation in the picture. Eventually, our guy would kill enough that it would break up the formation and the target area would no longer be 7 Roman soldiers. I tried figuring out the M16 guy’s accuracy after that happens, but it was too hard. So let’s just assume the target area stays 7 soldiers the whole time he’s shooting - maybe there’s a bunch of testudos headed his way and he’s switching between them.It might seem like we should make a new linear equation for his accuracy, giving him 70% accuracy at 300m instead of 10%, but this assumes that the soldier is still 100% accurate only at 3 meters - which is completely ridiculous for a testudo-sized target.So, instead, I’ll just use our equation from before, but times it by 7:[math]7(-.003(300-t)+1.009)[/math]= accuracyEdit: If our soldier is 80% accurate at 300 m, we’ll just have to assume 100% accuracy from the moment the Testudos show up. This means 250 dead Romans, no question.There’s a problem, though; when we integrate this, the calculator will keep adding up accuracy even after it passes 100%. By the time the Romans are 5 meters away, our guy will be killing three or four soldiers each time he shoots.To fix this, we’ll just figure out at what point the accuracy reaches 1 (100%). Simple algebra:[math]7(-.003(300-t)+1.009)=1[/math]Solve for t and you get about 11 seconds. After 11 seconds, we won’t need any formulas anymore - our guy will be killing a Roman every time he shoots.Now if we integrate our formula (multiplied by 7) from 0 to 11 seconds, we’ll know how many Romans he downed in that time. It comes out to be about 10.After that, it’s just a question of how much ammo he has left. Since he has a rate of fire of about 1 bullet per second, and he’s been shooting for 11 seconds, that means he has 239 bullets left…Which means that if the Romans use the testudo formation, our guy can kill 249 of them instead of 67.(This is, by the way, why armies stopped using massed formations and started hiding behind stuff in the 19th century.)But wait, what if M16 guy’s rate of fire was much more than 1 bullet per second?This brings us to the next question…Automatic fire settingAccording to the Wikipedia page for the M16, it has an automatic rate of fire of 700–950 rounds/min. (Again, no idea if this includes reloading clips, so let’s say it does and go with the 700 figure.) This means the M16 guy is putting down 11.6 times as many bullets every second.Edit: According to Valentine Azbelle in the comments, automatic fire does not include changing clips. Judging from this video, it takes about 3 seconds to change a clip. If our guy uses a 20-round clip, he will blow through it in 1.7 seconds; a 30-round clip will last 2.6. Let’s go with the 30-round clip.2.6 seconds plus 3 seconds to change clips means 5.6 seconds for 30 rounds; this works out to be 321 rounds/min or 5.35 rounds per second instead of 11.6.This is going to completely change the result from before. You may remember me saying earlier that an accuracy of 10.9% and a rate of fire of one shot per second would mean .109 dead Romans per second. However, the same of accuracy and a rate of fire of 11.6 bullets per second means about 5/4 of a Roman is dying every second. (Numbers make this seem a little weird, but it’s a good estimation of what would happen.)In that case, all we need to do is multiply our original integration formula by 11.6, the same way we figured out the effect of the Testudo formation:[math]11.6*[/math]fnInt([math]-.003(300-2.5t)+1.009,t,0,120)[/math]This time we won’t have to worry about the accuracy passing 100%, because the accuracy itself isn’t changing at all, the number of bullets is. However, remember that the M16 guy only carries 250 rounds of ammo. With a rate of fire of 700 rounds per minute, that means he’ll run out after about 22 seconds.So we replace the [math]120[/math] above with a [math]22[/math]. Now we can integrate to see how many he kills with an automatic fire setting; the result (rounded) is 49 Romans.Edit: Using the 5.35 number, we get 23 Romans, even worse. Turns out changing clips sucks.Another Edit: Using 80% accuracy and the 5.35 number, we get 95 dead Romans. This is still less than the 108 from earlier, but it’s not as big of a difference as it is when the soldier has 10% accuracy.This might seem wrong - more bullets usually equals more kills, right? Well, no; remember that the closer the Romans get, the more accurate M16 guy gets. So when he’s used up all his bullets before they’re even 200 meters away, he’s wasting a lot of his accuracy.This begs the question - what if they started 55 meters away? (That, by the way, is the distance they can run in 22 seconds.) Time to change the equation again, replacing the 300 with a 55:[math]11.6*[/math]fnInt([math]-.003(55-2.5t)+1.009,t,0,22)[/math]The result is a staggering 236 Romans.Edit: Or 109, using the 5.35 number for changing clips. Still a big number.Another Edit: Or 116, using both the 5.35 number and the 80% accuracy.As you can see, you can pretty much change this equation to fit any situation. That’s the cool thing about math.(Side note: if the Romans use the Testudo formation and our guy waits to within 55 meters, then opens up with automatic fire, they’re already well within the range of 100% accuracy we found earlier - which means he will kill 250 Romans, guaranteed. Ouch.)…but what about situations that don’t involve the M16?GrenadesThe math for grenades is much more straightforward. The US Army uses the M67 grenade as their standard frag grenade. Its Wikipedia page says it has a casualty radius of 15m. The site I used earlier to get the amount of ammo the guy had says he would be carrying two of these.The amount of casualties he could cause with this depends on what formation the Romans are using. If they go Testudo, he could knock out a whole formation of them with one well-thrown grenade.This picture of a testudo has 24 soldiers in it. The picture on the Wikipedia page for “testudo formation” has 32 soldiers. So, we could assume our guy could take out between 40 and 80 Romans with two grenades. Add that to the earlier total for testudos, and you have about 320 total dead Romans - another big argument for not using the Testudo.If the Romans are smart, they’ll spread out. How far they are able to spread out depends on where we are and how many Romans there are. See below for that, but first…The PilumOne of the Roman army’s strengths was its throwing javelin, the pilum. Before Roman soldiers closed with an enemy, each one would huck two of these things at a distance of about 30m max (according to this discussion). Using earlier math, that means our guy has roughly 110 seconds to kill these guys before getting a hundred spears chucked at his face.fnInt([math]-.003(300-2.5t)+1.009,t,0,110) = 57[/math]Replacing the 120 with 110 gives us 57 dead Romans before the spears become rain.Edit: Using the formula for 80% accuracy gives us 98 dead Romans.What happens when spears become rain, though? I tried to look up the accuracy of a pilum throw, but it turns out it doesn’t matter - the Romans used pila (plural for pilum) the same way Europeans used muskets, overcoming accuracy problems by using all of them at once, all focused on the same target. Our one M16 guy would not stand a chance.Edit: Multiple M16 guys would very much stand a chance, but the Romans would also all be dead or ran away before they got to throw their pila. That’ll be addressed in the Google Doc.Where are we and how many Romans are thereI’m going to assume we’re using a modern army to invade Rome - i.e., dropping our guy with the M16 on the frontiers of the empire and having him attack one of the border legions. There are about 4,300 Roman soldiers in a legion; generally, they tried to get their enemies to attack them on open ground and avoided woodlands where they couldn’t use their sweet formations, so we could assume they’re in some kind of big field or pasture, or maybe the North African desert. Now, if the Romans are smart, they’ll send their army spread out as far as possible, in waves - maybe even dozens of meters apart. (This means the grenades would probably kill 1–3 soldiers each.)Sending the army in waves might mean that our guy could take out a whole wave before they get to him - but remember, he can only get 67 guys before they get there (73 if you count each grenade for 3 guys). This means if the Romans send in 75 men, our guy will likely end up having to do hand-to-hand combat with two big armored dudes holding swords - not really a fun situation.As for the pila, we figured that our guy could kill 57 soldiers before they get within pilum-throwing distance. A wave of 75 men would thus have 36 pila left to chuck at our guy. That means he’s probably dead way before they get to him.According to the Wikipedia page on Roman legions, a Roman ‘century’ was about 80 soldiers during the peak of the empire. They’d more than likely use these as waves, which translates to 46 pila and 7 beefy guys for our soldier to deal with. Again, very dead.So, all in all, one modern soldier fighting smart Romans = 57 Romans. Somebody said there were roughly half a million Roman soldiers at the peak of the empire. Divide by 57 and you get 8,771 modern-day soldiers to kill every single Roman in the empire. That’s about the strength of one US division.Edit: With 80% accuracy instead of 10%, our guy would kill a whole century in about 92 seconds, and they’d never make it past 230 meters. He could do this twice if he has 250 bullets; however, the third time, he’d run out after 66 seconds, giving him 56 kills. Two centuries plus 56 = 216 Romans per M16 guy, meaning it would take a mere 2,315 M16 guys.Edit: Psychological EffectsI went on Reddit to ask about the psychology of shooting Romans with M16s, and one answer was particularly interesting. To summarize, initially the Romans may not know what the heck is going on, but after a while they’d figure it out and the result would be pretty much the same as other wars when the enemies did not know each other, such as when the Greeks fought the Persians or when the Romans fought the Germanic tribes.Roman depictions of Germans and Celts often describe them as brutish, savage, huge men who like to kill everything. It’s reasonable to assume they’d think about the same thing of our M16 guys, but even more pronounced. They probably would not throw down their swords and worship the soldiers as gods, but they wouldn’t be itching to fight them, either.Update: It’s not that simple.Update 2: It’s nowhere near that simple. As a result, I am going to write a Google Doc incorporating all of the great advice given by the commenters, and trying to account for everything they brought up.Needless to say, I don’t get out much.Final edit 10/10/2016: Alas, I have started to “get out much” and I’m not going to have time to work on this anymore. Someday I may come back to it, but for now I’m leaving it in its messy, unfinished, promises-broken state.

When I see stories about this on my feed, there are SJW comments that we don’t let people off the hook for doing things as teens when they’re not upper-class white guys. My answer: both actions are wrong. No one is owed entry to Harvard, but it’s a horrifying precedent to expose people to viral scrutiny and punish their careers because of stupid things they said as minors.Yes, yes, I know there are exceptions, that if you’re 17 and marching at a Nazi rally, you’re old enough to know. But it ought to be a high bar, particularly when people show regret or remorse. Otherwise, what is the future we are getting? What if he made a remark about women’s breasts at 14, or made a fart joke at 10, or thought pooping was funny at 7? How far is one’s past up for grabs now?