• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Worst Case Pandemic Prognostion Model Slashs Predction w/ 96% fewer deaths

Bug spray doesn't kill us on contact. What percent of our genome is shared with insects?
Bug spray, specifically insecticides which I'm pretty sure you mean, are neurotoxins. Has nothing to do with genome, but rather the dose into the body by mass. Getting it on your skin isn't like a bug ingesting it.

Your ignorance is showing.
 
You're hilarious. You'll defend a crap point to the death - it's like whack a mole but instead of moles, it's stupid right wing talking points that we have to hammer again and again and again.

He "exited" his "worst case narrative" in the original study, by giving different estimates if various containment strategies were put in place. You'd know that if you weren't too lazy to read it.

And then he very publicly embraced his team's original work. I quoted it. You ignored what he said to lie about what he said and did. Fascinating!

I'll reply without reciprocal insults. What's on display here happens sometimes when science is deployed in direct support of public policy. The scientists, knowingly or unknowingly, can drift into advocacy. That seems to be the case in this instance. The phenomenon is common enough that it has a name: "noble cause corruption."
The Imperial College team was quite content (I infer) to let the worst-case narrative dominate the public discussion because they thought they were doing good. The range and nuances of their conclusions took a back seat.
When government responses began to render the worst case unlikely, Ferguson stepped forward to provide the balance that would have been more valuable earlier. It also occurs to me (because of the small size of the relevant expert community) that they may have got wind of Lewis's forthcoming critique. That last point is just speculation.
 
Resistance of a sort at LEAST.

Many acquire the virus and have little or NO reaction to it because of that, OR they have good immune response.

This makes it difficult to ascertain the REAL numbers related to how "deadly" it really IS. This applies to many "bugs."

We know even common flu is and can be deadly to the elderly & people with other medical issues.

This is what these people in alarm mode don't comprehend.
 
A few interesting items for anyone interested in information more than crapping down their legs over nothing...

Dr. Fauci concedes coronavirus death rate like 'very bad flu'

Dr. Anthony Fauci, a key member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, co-authored an article published Thursday in the New England Journal of Medicine predicting the fatality rate for the coronavirus will turn out to be no worse than that of a "severe seasonal influenza."

Regarding the current coronavirus pandemic, they said: "If one assumes that the number of asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic cases is several times as high as the number of reported cases, the case fatality rate may be considerably less than 1%."

Dr. Deborah Birx mentioned Ferguson's dramatic downgrade of his estimate.

She said the predictions of models also "don't match the reality on the ground in either China, South Korea or Italy."

"Models are models. There's enough data now of the real experience with the coronavirus on the ground, really, to make these predictions much more sound," said Birx.


Dr. Fauci concedes coronavirus death rate like 'very bad flu' - WND


Dr. Birx: Coronavirus Data Doesn't Match The Doomsday Media Predictions

DR. DEBORAH BRIX: If you remember, that was the report that says there would be 500,000 deaths in the U.K. and 2.2 million deaths in the United States. They've adjusted that number in the U.K. to 20,000. Half a million to 20,000. We are looking at that in great detail to understand that adjustment.

I'm going to say something that is a little bit complicated but do it in a way we can understand it together. In the model, either you have to have a large group of people who a-asymptomatic, who never presented for any test to have the kind of numbers predicted. To get to 60 million people infected, you have to have a large group of a-symptomatics. We have not seen an attack rate over 1 in 1,000. So either we are measuring the iceberg and underneath it, are a large group of people. So we are working hard to get the antibody test and figure out who these people are and do they exist. Or we have the transmission completely wrong.


Dr. Birx: Coronavirus Data Doesn't Match The Doomsday Media Predictions | Video | RealClearPolitics

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Eran Bendavid and Jay Bhattacharya, two medical professors at Stanford, propose that we're using the wrong math and that we are still missing the numbers we need to do the math correctly.

According to the doctors, "The true fatality rate is the portion of those infected who die, not the deaths from identified positive cases." When calculating the mortality rate, while we know the numerator (the number who have died); we're using the wrong denominator. If the denominator is only those sick enough to get the test in the first place, that small number will return a much higher mortality rate.

Italy is being slammed by the speed of the coronavirus's spread, the ultimate mortality rate won't be as devastating as the early numbers predict:

Next, the northeastern Italian town of Vò, near the provincial capital of Padua. On March 6, all 3,300 people of Vò were tested, and 90 were positive, a prevalence of 2.7%. Applying that prevalence to the whole province (population 955,000), which had 198 reported cases, suggests there were actually 26,000 infections at that time. That's more than 130-fold the number of actual reported cases. Since Italy's case fatality rate of 8% is estimated using the confirmed cases, the real fatality rate could in fact be closer to 0.06%.


Is the Coronavirus as Deadly as They Say? - WSJ
 
And it started, in an attempt to make the president look bad.

Of course it did.

"If Hillary were in office, none of this would be happening just as none of this happened in 2009-10 with the H1N1 pandemic." A.T., "How do you solve a problem like Pelosi?," Patricia McCarthy

Sadly, a true statement.

This virus panic is a political stunt, that's all it ever was, all it ever WILL be.

Corona virus typology is NOT new. Corona viruses have been attacking us forever, and they won't stop when THIS strain is beaten.

Again. . .

Viruses that cause the common cold

human rhinoviruses

CORONAVIRUSES

parainfluenza viruses

adenoviruses

human parainfluenza virus (HPIV)

respiratory syncytial virus (RSV)

These viruses offer our immune systems new challenges ALWAYS, they are changing constantly ! If they didn't, we would get sick one time for each type, then never get a cold or the flu again ! Wouldn't that be nice ?

That's not how it works.

So, we have new viral illnesses challenging us always, this isn't new.

How we react IS new.

We've now decided that when a new strain of cold/flu virus arises, we're to shut our civilization down and huddle in our homes.

Given that there is ALWAYS a new strain of cold and flu, a bad one every year or two, we can be sure we'll all be spending MUCH more time at home with our families....

Or CAN we ?

Can our civilization survive only working part-time, or some unknown fraction, to be decided by nature and her mischevious viral creations ? ... at unknowable intervals ??

Or should we quit playing political games with each other about something that's always been with us, get back to work and stop acting like spoiled children ?

"But this is killing people !"

"The best medical professionals say this is the correct course of action!"


On & on & on we've read/heard these things.

Sure, it's killing people. New strains of these viruses always DO. This is not new.

Many medical professionals disagree completely with our current course of action. So the appeal to what "The best medical professionals..." say, is empty. They don't all say one thing. Sorry, theres no "consensus."

So, let's go back to the beginning....

"If Hillary were in office, none of this would be happening just as none of this happened in 2009-10 with the H1N1 pandemic."

There WILL be more corona virus infections in the future. New strains, some worse, some more mild than covid19 or H1N1 etc.

Are we to shut our civilization down every time we encounter a new one ?

Or, do we do it ONLY when we have a president we've tried to impeach TWICE, a president we HATE, one we will do ANYTHING TO GET RID OF, ... and now's the perfect time for this, it's an election year, let's shut down the economy and make everyone miserable and blame the misery on HIM !! ANYTHING to get rid of that dreadful orange ape !!!!!

Think about it. There WILL be more strains of corona (and other) viruses, will we react as we've always reacted ? Or will we now always do THIS ?????

Because if we do THIS every time, our civilization will cease to function and we'll learn what REAL trouble is.
 
A few interesting items for anyone interested in information more than crapping down their legs over nothing...

Dr. Fauci concedes coronavirus death rate like 'very bad flu'

Dr. Anthony Fauci, a key member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, co-authored an article published Thursday in the New England Journal of Medicine predicting the fatality rate for the coronavirus will turn out to be no worse than that of a "severe seasonal influenza."

Regarding the current coronavirus pandemic, they said: "If one assumes that the number of asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic cases is several times as high as the number of reported cases, the case fatality rate may be considerably less than 1%."

Dr. Deborah Birx mentioned Ferguson's dramatic downgrade of his estimate.

She said the predictions of models also "don't match the reality on the ground in either China, South Korea or Italy."

"Models are models. There's enough data now of the real experience with the coronavirus on the ground, really, to make these predictions much more sound," said Birx.


Dr. Fauci concedes coronavirus death rate like 'very bad flu' - WND


Dr. Birx: Coronavirus Data Doesn't Match The Doomsday Media Predictions

DR. DEBORAH BRIX: If you remember, that was the report that says there would be 500,000 deaths in the U.K. and 2.2 million deaths in the United States. They've adjusted that number in the U.K. to 20,000. Half a million to 20,000. We are looking at that in great detail to understand that adjustment.

I'm going to say something that is a little bit complicated but do it in a way we can understand it together. In the model, either you have to have a large group of people who a-asymptomatic, who never presented for any test to have the kind of numbers predicted. To get to 60 million people infected, you have to have a large group of a-symptomatics. We have not seen an attack rate over 1 in 1,000. So either we are measuring the iceberg and underneath it, are a large group of people. So we are working hard to get the antibody test and figure out who these people are and do they exist. Or we have the transmission completely wrong.


Dr. Birx: Coronavirus Data Doesn't Match The Doomsday Media Predictions | Video | RealClearPolitics

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Eran Bendavid and Jay Bhattacharya, two medical professors at Stanford, propose that we're using the wrong math and that we are still missing the numbers we need to do the math correctly.

According to the doctors, "The true fatality rate is the portion of those infected who die, not the deaths from identified positive cases." When calculating the mortality rate, while we know the numerator (the number who have died); we're using the wrong denominator. If the denominator is only those sick enough to get the test in the first place, that small number will return a much higher mortality rate.

Italy is being slammed by the speed of the coronavirus's spread, the ultimate mortality rate won't be as devastating as the early numbers predict:

Next, the northeastern Italian town of Vò, near the provincial capital of Padua. On March 6, all 3,300 people of Vò were tested, and 90 were positive, a prevalence of 2.7%. Applying that prevalence to the whole province (population 955,000), which had 198 reported cases, suggests there were actually 26,000 infections at that time. That's more than 130-fold the number of actual reported cases. Since Italy's case fatality rate of 8% is estimated using the confirmed cases, the real fatality rate could in fact be closer to 0.06%.


Is the Coronavirus as Deadly as They Say? - WSJ

I think that's too complicated for left voting people to comprehend.

He didn't dumb it down enough. I don't think most of them get the iceberg simile.
 
I think that's too complicated for left voting people to comprehend.

He didn't dumb it down enough. I don't think most of them get the iceberg simile.

Unfortunately true -shrugs-

What can be done though, dumb will be dumb. When this blows over, they'll find something else to crap their britches about - besides hating the current president of course...

.... I guess then well get back to hearing about what an evil bastard that orange monkey Trump is -laughs-

SSDD just different issue LOL
 
Dr. Fauci concedes coronavirus death rate like 'very bad flu'
Stop cherry-picking. Fauci is on record, over and over, saying how serious this is.

Also, stop reading WND. Seriously.


Dr. Birx: Coronavirus Data Doesn't Match The Doomsday Media Predictions
RCP isn't much better.

Since you missed it: Italy's hospitals have been overwhelmed, and that drives up mortality rates (and not just for COVID-19). Their less-than-strict lockdown has helped, but they are still seeing more than 5000 new cases per day.

2020-03-27_14-11-42.jpg


DR. DEBORAH BRIX: If you remember, that was the report that says there would be 500,000 deaths in the U.K. and 2.2 million deaths in the United States. They've adjusted that number in the U.K. to 20,000.
That is a blatant lie.

The original Imperial College report on 3/16 offered numerous scenarios, and used the "do nothing" as a baseline. The revision put out this week shows the "do nothing" scenario as WORSE than in the 3/16 report, because COVID-19 spreads slightly faster than they previously estimated.


Eran Bendavid and Jay Bhattacharya, two medical professors at Stanford, propose that we're using the wrong math and that we are still missing the numbers we need to do the math correctly.
:roll:

We already know that the high mortality rate in Italy is in no small part due to testing patterns.

We also know, again, that there are already enough cases to overwhelm Italy's medical resources.

We also see that their "lockdown" is nowhere near as effective as, say, China's:

2020-03-27_14-18-17.jpg


Yet again... Stop spreading misinformation. You are helping no one by spreading bad info and lies.
 
As your commentary has been increasingly dominated by a refusal to read the sources and fallaciously construct straw man arguments, there isn't much point in responding.


THERE WAS NO DOWNGRADE.

Stop spreading misinformation.

I've already quoted media coverage of the report as alarmist. A close reading of the report, and Ferguson's most recent statements, also suggest he is now messaging an unrealistic set of extremely best case assumptions according to his own model - "bailing" in full force.

On page 13 of the report is a table of estimated deaths, compartmentalized by mitigation-suppressive actions.

Firstly, note that the Ro infection factor is estimated for no higher than 2.6. HOWEVER, most recently Ferguson has been quoted as claiming that the actual factor is more than they anticipated, about 3.0.

Second, I roughly extrapolate from the charts what the table would be IF 3.0 had been included.
After extrapolation we obtain the following:

Ro = 3.0
630,000 death for "do nothing".
Range of deaths forecast between 18.6K to 58K depending on time spent under full suppression over 2 year period.
Assuming an average of 79.5% under full suppression, more than 52K will be dead, not less than 20K.

So how does one get to the new assurance he gave of 20K or less? Apparently that is attainable ONLY by assuming that ALL mitigation and suppression strategies are employed, 85 percent of the time over 2 years...the most extreme and unrealistic of political assumptions.

In other words, the "message" has flipped from messaging the worst case to the best case, both unrealistic.

So the question remains, why is he NOW sanguine over the prospect when it is based on more unrealistic assumptions?

Covid Death Table Modified Final 2.jpg
 

Attachments

  • Covid Death Table Modified Final.jpg
    Covid Death Table Modified Final.jpg
    20.4 KB · Views: 40
Last edited:
Visbek . . .

He says;

"Stop spreading misinformation and lies."

As he spreads misinformation and lies.

Typical of the moronic left.
 
I've already quoted media coverage of the report as alarmist. A close reading of the report, and Ferguson's most recent statements, also suggests an unrealistic set of extremely best case assumptions behind his sanguine assurances.

On page 13 of the report is a table of estimated deaths, compartmentalized by mitigation-suppressive actions.

Firstly, note that the Ro infection factor is estimated for no higher than 2.6. HOWEVER, most recently Ferguson has been quoted as claiming that the actual factor is more than they anticipated, about 3.0.

Second, I roughly extrapolate from the charts what the table would be IF 3.0 had been included.

Third, after extrapolation we obtain the following:

Ro = 3.0
630,000 death for "do nothing".
Range of deaths forecast between 18.6K to 58K depending on time spent under suppression over 2 year period.
Assuming an average of 79.5% under suppression, more than 52K will be dead.

So how does one get to the assurance he gave of 20K or less? Apparently that is attainable ONLY by assuming that ALL mitigation and suppression strategies are employed, 85 percent of the time over 2 years...the most extreme of assumptions.

In other words, the "message" has flipped from messaging the worst case to the best case, both unrealistic.

So the question remains, why is he NOW sanguine over the prospect when it is based on unrealistic assumptions?

View attachment 67276531

You'll get nowhere with these people.

They're pasted like glue to nonsense. Drawn to B.S. like flies

Almost not worth the effort. You can only present information, watch them get mad about it, lie about it and deny it.
 
I'll reply without reciprocal insults. What's on display here happens sometimes when science is deployed in direct support of public policy. The scientists, knowingly or unknowingly, can drift into advocacy. That seems to be the case in this instance. The phenomenon is common enough that it has a name: "noble cause corruption."

Seems like "advocacy" in response to a public health crisis is sort of the job - advocate for policies that would save 10s of thousands of human lives. Isn't that what effective advisors do? And when they publish their estimates, and clearly outline the assumptions underlying the death rates, there is no corruption of anything to anyone not too lazy or stupid to read a fairly short study.

Furthermore, those alarming death counts assumed the lax response THEN IN PLACE in the UK. So, it's not corrupt for those authoring a study to allow a narrative in the public that "if we do what WE ARE DOING, what our government RECOMMENDS, here's the likely result." But their report also reported the benefits of doing something very different than the 'herd immunity' initially advocated by Boris and crew.

Where's the corruption? They are public health policy experts telling the UK government - if you choose this route, here are the awful, terrible, devastating numbers we can expect.

The Imperial College team was quite content (I infer) to let the worst-case narrative dominate the public discussion because they thought they were doing good. The range and nuances of their conclusions took a back seat.

You keep making this claim without citing a single example of it. Here's a WaPo story initially reporting the study. It outlines the entirety of the study - what happens if nothing is done, what happens if short term measures are put in place, AND the likely results (less than 20k dead) if the most extreme measures are adopted for the 12-18 months we'll be dealing with the virus. So if any "narrative" "dominated" discussion, those pushing it didn't read the study or this article.

Which outlets were promoting 2.2 million dead in the U.S. without the necessary qualifications? Cite them please, since you've asserted many times this dishonest narrative dominated and that Ferguson et al. had a duty to correct this false narrative that you've hand-waved as fact into this discussion. Back it up if you want to assert it as fact.

When government responses began to render the worst case unlikely, Ferguson stepped forward to provide the balance that would have been more valuable earlier. It also occurs to me (because of the small size of the relevant expert community) that they may have got wind of Lewis's forthcoming critique. That last point is just speculation.

You mean the balance that's in the study, in the tables and in the discussion, and that's accessible to anyone who can read above the grade school level? So they 'provided the balance' from the minute that study went online. All it took was people, unlike you, who had the tiny initiative to read it before reporting on it.

And you keep ignoring when the balance was provided. It wasn't on an interview with Laura Ingraham or Sean Hannity or Rush, but in testimony to parliament - i.e. the decision makers. That's their job - and they testified to the results given the new policies recently put in place by Boris Johnson, which is of course entirely appropriate. When public policy changed, their predictions about the results of new public policy changed, exactly as they told us in that initial study! That's not corrupt in any sense of the word.

And Lewis isn't relevant. They didn't back off their original conclusions in the slightest. They ignored him, and his study. I have no doubt they have been reviewing all the new data to revise their estimates, because in that testimony he acknowledges they've done so, and revised the R0 upwards, to around 3.0 from their previous upper end of 2.6. But they didn't need some hack climate researcher with no relevant expertise in pandemics publishing a non-reviewed estimate of CFRs to make them do that.
 
That chart shows a major flaw in the death rate. It can only be used for the verified cases. Each group should have approximately the same numbers for positive tests, except the 70+ categories, since this is where most people start to die of old age.

Think about it. Use for example 200 people infected for each category.

Please cite WHO has the major flaw in the chart - the death rate as calculated by Lewis or Ferguson? I'm not sure I understand.
 
I've already quoted media coverage of the report as alarmist. A close reading of the report, and Ferguson's most recent statements, also suggest he is now messaging an unrealistic set of extremely best case assumptions according to his own model - "bailing" in full force.

On page 13 of the report is a table of estimated deaths, compartmentalized by mitigation-suppressive actions.

Firstly, note that the Ro infection factor is estimated for no higher than 2.6. HOWEVER, most recently Ferguson has been quoted as claiming that the actual factor is more than they anticipated, about 3.0.

Second, I roughly extrapolate from the charts what the table would be IF 3.0 had been included.
After extrapolation we obtain the following:

Ro = 3.0
630,000 death for "do nothing".
Range of deaths forecast between 18.6K to 58K depending on time spent under full suppression over 2 year period.
Assuming an average of 79.5% under full suppression, more than 52K will be dead, not less than 20K.

So how does one get to the new assurance he gave of 20K or less? Apparently that is attainable ONLY by assuming that ALL mitigation and suppression strategies are employed, 85 percent of the time over 2 years...the most extreme and unrealistic of political assumptions.

The article you cited earlier - UK has enough intensive care units for coronavirus, expert predicts | New Scientist - indicates that the new models assume the strict lockdown put in place in the UK is followed by a S.Korea style test and trace program. That measure was not part of the initial study, as has been pointed out many times.
 
Seems like "advocacy" in response to a public health crisis is sort of the job - advocate for policies that would save 10s of thousands of human lives. Isn't that what effective advisors do? And when they publish their estimates, and clearly outline the assumptions underlying the death rates, there is no corruption of anything to anyone not too lazy or stupid to read a fairly short study.

Furthermore, those alarming death counts assumed the lax response THEN IN PLACE in the UK. So, it's not corrupt for those authoring a study to allow a narrative in the public that "if we do what WE ARE DOING, what our government RECOMMENDS, here's the likely result." But their report also reported the benefits of doing something very different than the 'herd immunity' initially advocated by Boris and crew.

Where's the corruption? They are public health policy experts telling the UK government - if you choose this route, here are the awful, terrible, devastating numbers we can expect.



You keep making this claim without citing a single example of it. Here's a WaPo story initially reporting the study. . . .

From your WaPo link:

". . . The Imperial College London group reported that if nothing was done by governments and individuals and the pandemic remained uncontrolled, 510,000 would die in Britain and 2.2 million in the United States over the course of the outbreak.

These kinds of numbers are deeply concerning for countries with top-drawer health-care systems. They are terrifying for less-developed countries, global health experts say.

If Britain and the United States pursued more-ambitious measures to mitigate the spread of the coronavirus, to slow but not necessarily stop the epidemic over the coming few months, they could reduce mortality by half, to 260,000 people in the United Kingdom and 1.1 million in the United States. . . . "

And two days later:

Coronavirus projections - Washington Post

www.washingtonpost.com › health › 2020/03/19 › coronavirus-projecti...
hEzf9MFMNhMLkAAAAAElFTkSuQmCC


Mar 19, 2020 - In the worst-case scenario, America is on a trajectory toward 1.1 million deaths. That model envisions the sick pouring into hospitals, ...

". . . Trump’s sudden shift was driven by an alarming new scientific model, developed by British epidemiologists and shared with the White House. The scientists bluntly stated the coronavirus is the most serious respiratory virus threat since the 1918 flu pandemic. If no action to limit the viral spread were taken, as many as 2.2 million people in the United States could die over the course of the pandemic, according to epidemiologist Neil Ferguson and others at the Imperial College Covid-19 Response Team.

Adopting some mitigation strategies to slow the pandemic — such as isolating those suspected of being infected and social distancing of the elderly — only cuts the death toll in half to 1.1 million, although it would also reduce demand for health services by two-thirds. . . ."


 
There has been a wide range of predicted deaths in the US - from 2,200,000 in US to 4,000. The forecast for 2,200,000 was Neil Ferguson, using a model forecasting the rates using different mitigation strategies, or none at all.

Ferguson, using the same model, forecast British coronavirus deaths at 510,000. Now, with the latest information on the virus and data his model forecasts LESS THAN 20,000 for the UK. Moreover, more than half those who die will be individuals who would have died anyway from old age and other medical causes before the end of the year

Although the Britain has only just begun a lockdown two days ago, Ferguson predicts that the new virus deaths will peak in two or three weeks, and then decline.

Another alarmist meme bites the dust.

Back to work by Easter!

We simply don't know what we don't know.
Yes, there are medical experts who advise leaders. How much do they know given we are walking on untrodden ground with only past epidemics to guide us?
I like the attitude of some governors who (like Trump) are ready to open up some areas to see who can get back to work.
Here is the attitude of the Florida governor. Is he wrong? And who knows if he is wrong? Who should he listen to?



Florida’s Governor Dissents on Lockdowns
Republican Ron DeSantis draws liberal ire for resisting ‘shelter in place.’
By The Editorial Board
March 26, 2020 7:21 pm ET

Mr. DeSantis has ordered the closure of Florida restaurants and other gathering places. He has also required quarantines for people arriving by air from the New York City region and urged seniors to stay at home. Florida schools are closed at least through mid-April.

Yet Mr. DeSantis has stopped short of declaring a statewide lockdown or closing all non-essential businesses. Instead local governments have flexibility, and major cities like Miami and Orlando are imposing more draconian policies like those in effect in New York and California. In less densely populated Florida areas there are fewer restrictions.
 
Er-oh.

With the stock market surging, people not dying & Biden in massive decline, the Democrats will not be happy...

Back to Ukranian Nazis & Trump rapes puppies I guess.

:shrug:

Anti-Trumpers will always find a way to criticize the president - no matter if good news suddenly erupts.
The latest is Trump is getting flak for not telling the mayor of New Orleans to cancel Mardi Gras.
Surprised she didn't blame Trump for Katrina.
 
One single person says something, so clearly it's a hoax? How moronic. And how expected. Hannity commanded you guys to say it, so you're saying it. That's all that's going on here.

Hannity echoed Trump. The nice thing about not knowing anything is that your facts can't be wrong.
 
One single person says something, so clearly it's a hoax? How moronic. And how expected. Hannity commanded you guys to say it, so you're saying it. That's all that's going on here.

So now Hannity is our fearless thinker?

What happened to Putin? Did he die?
 
That chart shows a major flaw in the death rate. It can only be used for the verified cases. Each group should have approximately the same numbers for positive tests, except the 70+ categories, since this is where most people start to die of old age.

Think about it. Use for example 200 people infected for each category.

It's odd how you think you can just fabricate data, and then use this data you've fabricated as the basis for a study.

If you've been on a cruise you know that the population is skewed older, so there are very few teens and 20s and 30s compared to those in retirement, able to take two weeks off for a cruise in Asia. They then have to adjust the Cruise population to the population as a whole, and there are good reasons to believe the exposure rate in the broader public will be different for different age groups, such as college students routinely going into classes with 50 or 100 new people, maybe 10-15 times a week, going to parties, crowded bars, concerts, versus the more homebound lifestyle of the average 78 yo retiree.
 
From your WaPo link:

If Britain and the United States pursued more-ambitious measures to mitigate the spread of the coronavirus, to slow but not necessarily stop the epidemic over the coming few months, they could reduce mortality by half, to 260,000 people in the United Kingdom and 1.1 million in the United States. . . . "

Goodness, you snipped the discussion I told you was in the article, then dishonestly quoted from the article by leaving critical context unmentioned. Why did you omit this part?

Finally, if the British government quickly went all-out to suppress viral spread — aiming to reverse epidemic growth and reduce the case load to a low level — then the number of dead in the country could drop to below 20,000. To do this, the researchers said, Britain would have to enforce social distancing for the entire population, isolate all cases, demand quarantines of entire households where anyone is sick, and close all schools and universities — and do this not for weeks but for 12 to 18 months, until a vaccine is available.

Oh, so the story reported that if the UK did what they just announced, the numbers would be far, far lower than 500,000! It was reported in the article and the study!!!

And two days later:

[/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR]Coronavirus projections - Washington Post

www.washingtonpost.com › health › 2020/03/19 › coronavirus-projecti...
hEzf9MFMNhMLkAAAAAElFTkSuQmCC


Mar 19, 2020 - In the worst-case scenario, America is on a trajectory toward 1.1 million deaths. That model envisions the sick pouring into hospitals, ...

". . . Trump’s sudden shift was driven by an alarming new scientific model, developed by British epidemiologists and shared with the White House. The scientists bluntly stated the coronavirus is the most serious respiratory virus threat since the 1918 flu pandemic. If no action to limit the viral spread were taken, as many as 2.2 million people in the United States could die over the course of the pandemic, according to epidemiologist Neil Ferguson and others at the Imperial College Covid-19 Response Team.

Adopting some mitigation strategies to slow the pandemic — such as isolating those suspected of being infected and social distancing of the elderly — only cuts the death toll in half to 1.1 million, although it would also reduce demand for health services by two-thirds. . . ."



Holy cow you're being deeply, intentionally dishonest. For some reason you omitted this from your analysis of that article:

That grim scenario is by no means a foregone conclusion — as demonstrated by countries such as South Korea, which has reduced its new cases a day from many hundreds to a few score with aggressive steps to bolster its health system.

If Americans embrace drastic restrictions and school closures, for instance, we could see a death toll closer to the thousands and breathe a national sigh of relief as we prepare for a grueling but surmountable road ahead.

Why do you prefer making intellectually dishonest arguments over rational discussion? I don't get it - do you think I'm not going to notice what you hackishly omitted from what WaPo reported?
 
I've already quoted media coverage of the report as alarmist.
And I've quoted MSM coverage that wasn't.


A close reading of the report, and Ferguson's most recent statements, also suggest he is now messaging an unrealistic set of extremely best case assumptions according to his own model - "bailing" in full force.
Here we go


Firstly, note that the Ro infection factor is estimated for no higher than 2.6. HOWEVER, most recently Ferguson has been quoted as claiming that the actual factor is more than they anticipated, about 3.0.
lol

Yes, I've been telling you that for some time now. That means the new "do nothing" model is actually worse than in the 3/16 paper. Again, he was very explicit about that:

Screen Shot 2020-03-26 at 8.10.29 PM.jpg

Screen Shot 2020-03-26 at 8.10.40 PM.jpg


So how does one get to the new assurance he gave of 20K or less? Apparently that is attainable ONLY by assuming that ALL mitigation and suppression strategies are employed, 85 percent of the time over 2 years...the most extreme and unrealistic of political assumptions.

In other words, the "message" has flipped from messaging the worst case to the best case, both unrealistic.
:roll:

Nothing has "flipped."

The study claims that the best results are obtained by a combination of case isolation, home quarantine, social distancing, school/uni closures will result in the best outcomes -- and that's pretty much where the UK is now. You're also completely ignoring the "on trigger" elements (based on the number of weekly ICU cases).


So the question remains, why is he NOW sanguine over the prospect when it is based on more unrealistic assumptions?
:roll:

Again: The views have not changed.

He and his team NEVER expected the "do nothing" outcome. The report explicitly says that it was "unlikely" there would be no controls and no "spontaneous changes in individual behaviour."

Ferguson is now:
- looking at the policies currently in effect
- assuming stricter policies will kick in early enough
- taking note that NHS is ramping up capacity
- plugging all of that into the already existing models used for that 3/16 paper
UK has enough intensive care units for coronavirus, expert predicts | New Scientist

And if you read the report or discussion of his testimony, you'd know that he does not think we can keep this up forever. That's why they modeled four separate suppression cycles:

2020-03-27_15-05-07.jpg

It's also why he is advocating for a South Korea-style approach:

Ferguson said the current strategy was intended to keep transmission of the virus at low levels until a vaccine was available. Experts say that could take 12 to 18 months and Ferguson acknowledged it was impractical to keep the UK in lockdown for so long, especially because of the impact on the economy. “We’ll be paying for this year for decades to come,” he said.

The UK government is aiming to relax restrictions on people’s movements only when the country has the ability to test more people for the virus, said Ferguson. Some have criticised the UK for not following the advice of the World Health Organization to “test, test, test”. But Ferguson said community testing and contact tracing wasn’t included as a possible strategy in the original modelling because not enough tests were available.

He said the UK should have the testing capacity “within a few weeks” to copy what South Korea has done and aggressively test and trace the general population.



Would it really kill you to sit down and read the document and what he's saying with an open mind, instead of skimming it with an already entrenched view, and dreaming up ad hoc objections? Yeesh.
 
Back
Top Bottom