• 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

"Stop spreading misinformation and lies."

As he spreads misinformation and lies.
So basically, your idea of a solid argument is "I'm rubber, you're glue." :lamo

P.S. Stop spreading misinformation and lies, kthx.
 
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!

That article (and your opening line) discusses changes in mortality rates, not infection rates.

Do you know the difference? And do you know why the difference matters? (See: flattening the curve)
 
Why do you prefer making intellectually dishonest arguments over rational discussion?
Because the honest arguments and scientific facts do not match his ideology.

It's the same thing with climate science, and the same approach: Cherry pick. Find non-credible people, often with no experience in the relevant field, to cast doubt on the real science. Misdirect. Lie. Waste everyone's time, when in this case people are dying right here, right now.
 
Hannity echoed Trump. The nice thing about not knowing anything is that your facts can't be wrong.

I don't think Trump or Hannity knows how long we should keep the government and society shut down. Should we force people to remain out of work for a year? For two years? What will happen to our economy if we have to keep spending a trillion a month just to feed the poor who are out of work? I don't think Trump's critics know the answers either, but they like to give the impression they do.
 
Lies

Liberals

Liberals LIE

About EVERYTHING

Liberals are Liars

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

Pt 1

Top 10 Lies About President Trump’s Response to the Coronavirus

disinformation about the government’s response to the coronavirus has spread. Democrats and the mainstream media have willingly spread false information

[ That's what liberals do ]

Many of these lies were quickly debunked, but that hasn’t stopped the false information from being repeated over and over

The left hopes these lies will continue to spread


[ Lying Liberals endlessly repeat the Lies ]

top ten lies that have been spread about Trump’s response to the coronavirus pandemic.

10. Trump downplayed the mortality rate of the coronavirus



(See next page for part 2 )
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That article (and your opening line) discusses changes in mortality rates, not infection rates.

Do you know the difference? And do you know why the difference matters? (See: flattening the curve)

No, I didn't discuss ANY RATES! I stated there has been a wide range of forecasted end results from the virus: the TOTAL DEATHS from the virus in the US and the UK, in particular noting Ferguson's death totals depending on certain mitigation/suppression choices.

If you don't even know the difference between a statement of fact (what the forecast numbers are) vs "a rate" (a quantity, amount, or degree of something measured per unit of something else, such as time) then I won't be asking you about changes in rates, no matter how you define them.

Total dead is total dead...its not a rate.
 
No, I didn't discuss ANY RATES! I stated there has been a wide range of forecasted end results from the virus: the TOTAL DEATHS from the virus in the US and the UK, in particular noting Ferguson's death totals depending on certain mitigation/suppression choices.

If you don't even know the difference between a statement of fact (what the forecast numbers are) vs "a rate" (a quantity, amount, or degree of something measured per unit of something else, such as time) then I won't be asking you about changes in rates, no matter how you define them.

Total dead is total dead...its not a rate.

You were stating the obvious? Sorry, I thought there was more to it than that then.
 
Visbek . . .
He says;
Stop spreading misinformation and lies."
As he spreads misinformation and lies.
Typical of the moronic left.

The old “ I know you are but what am I.”

You aren’t embarrassed by your inability to refute his arguments...and your school yard defense response? You should change your avatar to a small child peeing on himself. It would be less falsely advertised.
 
Here's a model just released by the University of Washington's School of Medicine. It predicts about 80,000 US deaths in the next four months. The death rate will peak in mid-April. We'll be out of danger around early June, according to the model. It also predicts the need for about 20,000 ventilators.

Click on "interact with the model" to get day-by-day projections. It shows quite well how we are in the very early stages of this epidemic. The model shows us peaking on April 14 at about 2,341 deaths per day.

...and we just passed 100,000 cases in the US.
 
Last edited:
I might feel humbled if I actually asserted that. But your quoting Mashmont, not me, "maxparrish". I never said there would only be 10,400 deaths nor cited Mashmont.

My bad.
 
The old “ I know you are but what am I.”

You aren’t embarrassed by your inability to refute his arguments...and your school yard defense response?

There aren't any arguments to refute. He - and you - offer only stale bologna.

You should change your avatar to a small child peeing on himself. It would be less falsely advertised.

Clever devil, you may think you are ; ) Have a fabulous day.
 
I love this. The Washington Post summarized the dispute being waged on this thread, about whether the model promised a very high figure and now it has backtracked on that prediction. (It didn't).

Here's the beautiful kicker:

But the argument over models in some ways is beside the point, said Natalie Dean, a biostatistician at the University of Florida. “The models are planning tools, but it doesn’t take a genius to look at what’s happening in Italy and realize that we’re on the same trajectory,” said Dean, who is working on coronavirus vaccine evaluation with the World Health Organization. “That should be enough to tell us we need to be doing more in reaction.”

Should be. If we were all similarly rational. Alas.
 
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?



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!!!



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



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?

What I cited were the money quotes, certain to lead coverage of the story. You are taking refuge in the "to be sure" quotes, less prominently placed and certain not to lead coverage.
 
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.

This is what most people fail to understand about it.

Do you think someone in their 20's isn't going to catch the virus less frequent than someone in their 60's or 70's? Younger people are not showing symptoms at the same rate. Unless you have a large enough sampling of asymptomatic people, the numbers are wrong.

The CDC and WHO actually acknowledge this.
 
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.

There are other data charts similar. There is a large imbalance by age.

You're right in that I used the wrong chart, but it is so similar to the general population in numbers.
 
What I cited were the money quotes, certain to lead coverage of the story. You are taking refuge in the "to be sure" quotes, less prominently placed and certain not to lead coverage.

LOL, that's disappointing. It's not even interesting, and I can't believe you're not embarrassed to have to resort to that nonsense. I'm "taking refuge" in the study and the two WaPo articles accurately summarizing the modeling and the various outcomes given certain efforts to contain it. The information is right there - all anyone has to do is take the minimal effort to, you know, read a few paragraphs.

If that's not enough for you, I don't care. I can't solve your laziness.
 
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!

"Model projection with major mitigation efforts predicts fewer deaths than model projection with no mitigation efforts. News at 11."'

Do right wingers literally not understand that "doing something" and "doing nothing" have different ****in outcomes?

I really love this quote and need to emphasize it.

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.

Although? You need to understand that peak deaths in 2-3 weeks is because of the lockdown two days ago!
 
Last edited:
"Model projection with major mitigation efforts predicts fewer deaths than model projection with no mitigation efforts. News at 11."'

Do right wingers literally not understand that "doing something" and "doing nothing" have different ****in outcomes?

I really love this quote and need to emphasize it.



Although? You need to understand that peak deaths in 2-3 weeks is because of the lockdown two days ago!

And Great Britain had taken 'stay at home' restrictions weeks before that (similar to early US efforts in certain states)...these latest are just the most stringent and they are actually being more rigidly enforced.
 
There are other data charts similar. There is a large imbalance by age.

You're right in that I used the wrong chart, but it is so similar to the general population in numbers.

Yes, there is. At least in TN younger people make up most of the diagnosed cases, but none of that is a legitimate reason to criticize the study you've barely read, and I'd bet a nice dinner you don't have any idea what their model looks like.
 
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.

Which, of course, returns to the question of why an obvious prospective mitigations/suppressive strategy was left out of the theoretical model. As stated by me more than once, the op issue is not that the report itself is in error (although it likely is) OR that there are not scenarios one can mine to arrive at these lurid warnings BUT in how, through timing and selective focus, it was manipulated to foster policy.

The sequence is telling:

First, construct a study that leaves out a well known South Korean approach to the problem - one that apparently NOW makes a difference to the forecast.

Second, let the press run with it by emphasizing the unrealistic 'either or' false AND unrealistic choice of "nothing done" or "all suppression" as satisfactory.

Three, make sure, in the document that most people don't read, sufficient caveats, unknowns, and other salted loopholes allow a claim of honesty. Even hint that the South Korean option exists, but don't include it in the tables.

Four, when the meme has been milked dry take whatever policy intentions stated by Boris Johnson as something concrete and "locked down" - claiming that the South Korean option is was what all along could save the reports it's unrealistic and dubious forecasts based on full suppression.

Fact is that neither "do nothing" or "do everything" was ever realistic or practical, but it didn't stop the team from talking as if were. There is zero chance that an 85 percent rate of suppression could have been maintained for 18 to 24 months (or 80 or 75 etc.). And if the team had wanted to, according to the facts at hand, they could have forecast on a realistic basis with and without the Korea option (of course, that might have watered down 'suppression' via control of people's conduct).

So now, suddenly, the blandishments of Boris Johnson are taken as a reality, the discovery of the infection rate of 3.0 doesn't matter, and there really is no problem; NOW they (or their supporters) want to talk about that South Korean option thingy, the fine print left out of the marketing for full suppression over unrealistic time frames.

Sorry Jasper, none of this was necessary EXCEPT as a political marketing ploy to milk maximum suppression BEFORE introducing less draconian options and supplements.
 
Last edited:
I'll maintain my prediction for the USA at 89,100. Hopefully it's much lower.

From Business Insider, "80% of deaths associated with COVID-19 were among adults aged ≥65 years with the highest percentage of severe outcomes among persons aged ≥85 years." 80% of US coronavirus deaths have been among people 65 and older, a new CDC report says.

80% of US coronavirus deaths are among people 65 and up, CDC says - Business Insider

In the U.S. there are 100,597 cases of the coronavirus, 1,550 have died. The numbers are big, but so is the U.S. and the period in question. There are over 327 million people living in the U.S., and the total number of cases and the death toll is over a three month period. We are not hearing that from the news media. All we are hearing are the sad and desperate stories while the politicians and health experts tell us what terrible things will happen to us in the next two weeks.

Just like two weeks ago when they were telling us the horrible things that will happen in two weeks.

The numbers are big, but not nearly as big as in the case of the H1N1 virus, or swine flu.

H1N1 was first detected in April 2009 in a 10-year-old girl in California. It was declared a global pandemic in June 2009 by the World Health Organization (WHO) and was finally over in August 2010.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that swine flu infected nearly 61 million people in the United States and caused 12,469 deaths.

Worldwide, up to 575,400 people died from pandemic swine flu.3


Swine Flu (H1N1): Overview and More

I don't recall the politicians shutting down our economy in the summer of '09. I don't recall the politicians shutting down all leisure activities and canceling every sporting event, professional and amateur. I don't recall the politicians ordering every American to stay home unless there is an emergency. I don't recall the massive, 24/7 news coverage of the H1N1 pandemic to the exclusion of everything else.

The coronavirus is nothing more than a new virus of the common cold, and, like the common cold, "with the highest percentage of severe outcomes among persons aged ≥85 years."

What is going on?
 
"Model projection with major mitigation efforts predicts fewer deaths than model projection with no mitigation efforts. News at 11."'

Do right wingers literally not understand that "doing something" and "doing nothing" have different ****in outcomes?

I really love this quote and need to emphasize it.

Although? You need to understand that peak deaths in 2-3 weeks is because of the lockdown two days ago!

Actually I understand that "lockdown" is a matter of degree and there is nothing I have read in his model that suggested a peak 2 to 3 weeks after Johnson institutes more pleas and " arm twisting by an unknown mechanism of enforcement, and unspecified measurement of suppression attainment.

There is no magical "lock" and "unlock" process that goes from zero to 100 in efficacy. Whatever predictions have been made are not in light of anything a prior option purposely not considered seriously in the report (South Korean testing) OR are purely rhetorical declarations of goals as yet to be proven.

So no, giving such an assurance of less than 20K deaths and a peak in a few weeks in light of his own crisis saturated report is at either premature or it was a set up. UNTIL the next several weeks pass, we don't even know if any of the rates of social distancing, business distancing, isolation, etc. will be achieved, let alone accomplish what it is supposed to.
 
Last edited:
The numbers are big, but not nearly as big as in the case of the H1N1 virus, or swine flu.

H1N1 was first detected in April 2009 in a 10-year-old girl in California. It was declared a global pandemic in June 2009 by the World Health Organization (WHO) and was finally over in August 2010.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that swine flu infected nearly 61 million people in the United States and caused 12,469 deaths.

Worldwide, up to 575,400 people died from pandemic swine flu.3


Swine Flu (H1N1): Overview and More

I don't recall the politicians shutting down our economy in the summer of '09. I don't recall the politicians shutting down all leisure activities and canceling every sporting event, professional and amateur. I don't recall the politicians ordering every American to stay home unless there is an emergency. I don't recall the massive, 24/7 news coverage of the H1N1 pandemic to the exclusion of everything else.

Just in case my memory was faulty about all this -- it happens -- I asked my wife if she remembered the swine flu in 2009. Her reply was precious.

"Yeah," she said, "It was no big deal."

Great, I'm not losing my mind.
 
LOL, that's disappointing. It's not even interesting, and I can't believe you're not embarrassed to have to resort to that nonsense. I'm "taking refuge" in the study and the two WaPo articles accurately summarizing the modeling and the various outcomes given certain efforts to contain it. The information is right there - all anyone has to do is take the minimal effort to, you know, read a few paragraphs.

If that's not enough for you, I don't care. I can't solve your laziness.

They knew what they were doing, and I suspect you do too.
 
Back
Top Bottom