• 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

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.
It quotes itself, it asks its wife.....and now it spams the same message on two different threads!

The bots are ingenious!
 
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.

I have not reviewed your back and forth with LP so I will only observe what seems critical to me:

1) It is the largest sample size of an isolated population over a long period of time.

2) Exposure of old people to the virus would presumably be as high, or markedly higher than the average old person. Quarters are confined and small. Dining and recreation largely communal. Lifestyles, while not for the bed-ridden, are for more sedentary, social, but less physically active seniors.

3) There were so few people under 60 that the sample size for that age group was not large enough to be considered.

Therefore, inferences drawn from the cohort age groups statistics are likely correct for that age group. Other inferences about other age groups outside of this study suggest that age and three specific health issues are the overwhelming large determinant of the infection and death rates.

Although one might anticipate that young and healthy people would be less prone to infection, or might be more asymptomatic when infected, it is clear from other data that they have extremely low rates of fatalities.
 
It quotes itself, it asks its wife.....and now it spams the same message on two different threads!

The bots are ingenious!

Well, I must have gotten it right. You couldn't challenge anything I said.

On the other hand, I will challenge what you said. I am not an "it" nor am I a bot. Do you always reply to a post with the intent of pissing a person off? That's pretty sad.

I am a retired teacher, Marine officer, author, and columnist with a lot of time on my hands, and I enjoy writing.

And I also enjoy getting it right.
 
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.

I wish I knew why you felt obligated to smear the UK team, but I cannot figure it out. I started to reply in detail, but it's not worth the effort. You're just repeating points others have already addressed. You're decided to delegitimize them for some reason, so of course nothing anyone can say will satisfy you.
 
Well, I must have gotten it right. You couldn't challenge anything I said.

On the other hand, I will challenge what you said. I am not an "it" nor am I a bot. Do you always reply to a post with the intent of pissing a person off? That's pretty sad.

I am a retired teacher, Marine officer, author, and columnist with a lot of time on my hands, and I enjoy writing.

And I also enjoy getting it right.

Sorry Gunny but you didn't get it right. H1N1 (Swine Flu) was not a "novel virus". As is the one that we are dealing with now. A large portion of what normally would've been the most vulnerable among us to an infectious disease, older people with underlying previous conditions. Already had a level of immunity to it because they had previously been exposed to an H1N1 virus when they were young. And also not being a novel virus meant that there were vaccines that became readily available for it. No one has any such immunity to this virus and there is no vaccine that will become available any time soon. So even though the Swine Flu was a highly infectious disease with 65 million Americans contracting it over the course of a year. It's mortality rate turned out to be far lower than what had been initially expected.
 
Well, I must have gotten it right. You couldn't challenge anything I said.

On the other hand, I will challenge what you said. I am not an "it" nor am I a bot. Do you always reply to a post with the intent of pissing a person off? That's pretty sad.

I am a retired teacher, Marine officer, author, and columnist with a lot of time on my hands, and I enjoy writing.

And I also enjoy getting it right.

A retired bot. Ingenious, I'm tellin' ya. :mrgreen:
 
I wish I knew why you felt obligated to smear the UK team, but I cannot figure it out. I started to reply in detail, but it's not worth the effort. You're just repeating points others have already addressed. You're decided to delegitimize them for some reason, so of course nothing anyone can say will satisfy you.

While I believe my observations to be based on kernels of truth, your plain spoken perception that I feel obligated to smear the team has, upon more reflection, some merit. Something you said did satisfy me, and I think it fair to say that to a large degree I have made a mountain out of a hillock.

To be fair, I respect the work done as well as the methodology, as far as it goes. I also believe (or believed till recently) that a combination of reasonably enforced mitigation strategies would reduce fatalities to 500,000 in the US (from the theoretical 2.2 million) but in the circumstances of ever deeper economic destruction these strategies could not last longer than two months - I thought it a fair trade.

What caught me by surprise was the sudden turn in public perception of COVID team findings; nine days ago numbers of 1 to 2 million dead were tossed about in some of the popular press as IF they could be a looming reality. The only salvation was more than "mere" mitigation but in a program of 18 or more months of suppressive lockdown 85% of the time.

Nine days later, after Boris issues a single order for the public to not leave their homes excepted under limited shopping, medical, and vital work circumstances the news reported NOW the death rate will only be 20,000 and the peak over the top out in a few weeks.

It might be true, and it may make perfect sense to Ferguson. And maybe some of the more sloppy popular press headlined and slanted this report and tilted to unfair inferences. And it maybe with lots more digging, one can figure out how to mesh the fine print, the revised considerations, and Boris Johnson's seemingly time limited orders as fulfilling the reports requirement of full suppression over the long haul. But the bottom line is that until such time as the COVID teams compiles the new data in a revised report, the mix of new figures (e.g. increased infection rates) and assurances of how South Korean testing will NOW being factored in (in specific numbers) then I remain skeptical.

In short, neither doing nothing NOR doing everything suppressive at an 85 percent level over 18 months (or more) would have been practical. So I'd like it if the authors showed the public why they think Boris Johnson and the UK has fully adopted their recommendations over the time period required and how projected testing will change the numbers and time line.

So until such time as they formally revise and print a paper that shows how this will most assuredly happen, I remain skeptical.

That's it.
 
Last edited:
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?

What I want to know is how many people have been infected with SARS-CoV-2, but not even tested for COVID-19.
 
They knew what they were doing, and I suspect you do too.

Sure they knew what they were doing - reporting outcomes with various mitigation and suppression measures in place or not. They put it in a report that even climate deniers and WUWT devotees can read and grasp in one sitting! WaPo reported on it accurately, twice. Nice job all around I'd say.
 
Last edited:
I have not reviewed your back and forth with LP so I will only observe what seems critical to me:

1) It is the largest sample size of an isolated population over a long period of time.

2) Exposure of old people to the virus would presumably be as high, or markedly higher than the average old person. Quarters are confined and small. Dining and recreation largely communal. Lifestyles, while not for the bed-ridden, are for more sedentary, social, but less physically active seniors.

3) There were so few people under 60 that the sample size for that age group was not large enough to be considered.

Therefore, inferences drawn from the cohort age groups statistics are likely correct for that age group. Other inferences about other age groups outside of this study suggest that age and three specific health issues are the overwhelming large determinant of the infection and death rates.

Although one might anticipate that young and healthy people would be less prone to infection, or might be more asymptomatic when infected, it is clear from other data that they have extremely low rates of fatalities.

The inferences may be or may not be "likely correct." For starters, you'd have to conclude, and have evidence, that the cruise ship population of older, wealthier people with the health and financial means to take a two week cruise around parts of Asia is a good proxy for the UK/US population as a whole, and I'm not sure that's a good assumption. Seems absurd to me TBH.

Second, what's pretty incredible to me is Lewis, who you're using to discredit the UK study is 1) a climate "scientist" with actually no discernible expertise in pandemics, which might be why 2) he took actual death rates for that highly studied group of older people, all of them tested, many of them more than once, and chopped the observed CFR by 30%, because he assumed high false negative testing errors grossly understated the actual number of infected passengers by roughly that amount.

It's incredible to me the concerted right wing effort to discredit any actual experts during this crisis. I don't understand it. Surely there is some motive for it, but it escapes me. Some random guy WAY outside his area of expertise publishes a non-reviewed study, published on a blog, and it's being picked up all over the right wing puke funnel as gospel. Can you explain it?
 
What I want to know is how many people have been infected with SARS-CoV-2, but not even tested for COVID-19.

That makes no sense. If you're testing for COVID-19, what you're testing for is the presence of SARS-CoV-2, which is the virus that causes the disease - COVID 19.
 
While I believe my observations to be based on kernels of truth, your plain spoken perception that I feel obligated to smear the team has, upon more reflection, some merit. Something you said did satisfy me, and I think it fair to say that to a large degree I have made a mountain out of a hillock.

To be fair, I respect the work done as well as the methodology, as far as it goes. I also believe (or believed till recently) that a combination of reasonably enforced mitigation strategies would reduce fatalities to 500,000 in the US (from the theoretical 2.2 million) but in the circumstances of ever deeper economic destruction these strategies could not last longer than two months - I thought it a fair trade.

What caught me by surprise was the sudden turn in public perception of COVID team findings; nine days ago numbers of 1 to 2 million dead were tossed about in some of the popular press as IF they could be a looming reality. The only salvation was more than "mere" mitigation but in a program of 18 or more months of suppressive lockdown 85% of the time.

Nine days later, after Boris issues a single order for the public to not leave their homes excepted under limited shopping, medical, and vital work circumstances the news reported NOW the death rate will only be 20,000 and the peak over the top out in a few weeks.

It might be true, and it may make perfect sense to Ferguson. And maybe some of the more sloppy popular press headlined and slanted this report and tilted to unfair inferences. And it maybe with lots more digging, one can figure out how to mesh the fine print, the revised considerations, and Boris Johnson's seemingly time limited orders as fulfilling the reports requirement of full suppression over the long haul. But the bottom line is that until such time as the COVID teams compiles the new data in a revised report, the mix of new figures (e.g. increased infection rates) and assurances of how South Korean testing will NOW being factored in (in specific numbers) then I remain skeptical.

In short, neither doing nothing NOR doing everything suppressive at an 85 percent level over 18 months (or more) would have been practical. So I'd like it if the authors showed the public why they think Boris Johnson and the UK has fully adopted their recommendations over the time period required and how projected testing will change the numbers and time line.

So until such time as they formally revise and print a paper that shows how this will most assuredly happen, I remain skeptical.

That's it.

That's fair enough. I don't mind skepticism at all, but I really objected to the IMO grossly unfair attacks on the UK team, who are just doing their job as best they know how. They have spent a lifetime doing this work, and this is why they do it. NO ONE benefits from long shutdowns. I'm very positive those making "doomsday" predictions believe them, have data to back up their projections, and are doing their best to inform decision makers. The UK team did its job, and the UK and the US adopted many of their recommendations, and when put in practice we see them work, and when not in practice, we see what happens. NYC is a living example of how this can overwhelm a healthcare system in just a couple of weeks.

:peace
 
....

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.
....

What is going on?
Gosh, my friend, there are a number of factors that you kinda left out of your discussion: First, as it was an H1N1 strain, a vaccine was developed and deployed by DECEMBER 2009.
Second, we were in the midst of the second largest recession in the history of the United States (kind of a priority for the press and government at the time).
Third, the infection process occurred over an 18 month period.
Fourth, your memory is faulty. The Swine Flu Response (Health Affairs, May 1, 2009):
As the first H1N1 or so-called swine flu cases were diagnosed in Mexico, health officials all over the United States leapt into action. This is the test that they have been preparing for.

As the disease spread, public health professionals have been actively tracking the cases, working around the clock to analyze lab specimens, offering treatment to those with confirmed cases, dispensing antiviral medications from the Strategic National Stockpile (SNS), and letting the public know how to protect themselves and when to seek treatment.

The Obama administration has displayed strong, coordinated leadership, with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Department of Homeland Security, and the White House conveying guidance and strategies based on the best expert advice for how to respond. State and local health departments are monitoring and responding to cases as they emerge.
(Emphasis mine)
Government health measures in a pandemic are effective only with strong support and compliance from the public. A survey of 1,583 US adults early in the 2009 H1N1 (swine influenza) pandemic shows surprisingly mixed support for possible government efforts to control the spread of the disease, with strong support for more extreme measures such as closing borders and weak support for more basic, and potentially more effective, policies such as encouraging sick people to stay home from work. The results highlight challenges that public health officials and policy makers must address in formulating strategies to respond to a pandemic before a more severe outbreak occurs.The Vagaries Of Public Support For Government Actions In Case Of A Pandemic
The Vagaries Of Public Support For Government Actions In Case Of A Pandemic (NIH)
Governments around the world were initially uncertain about the virulence of H1N1, so protection measures varied widely, from the routine to the draconian. In Mexico City, where the virus first emerged, officials canceled both private and public events, earning praise from international health experts despite failing to slow the transmission of the disease.5

China quarantined all Canadian and Mexican nationals. Hong Kong quarantined all guests at any hotel where even a single guest was diagnosed with H1N1. Singapore quarantined everyone arriving from Mexico. Many Asian nations subjected everyone arriving from abroad, and all schoolchildren, to routine temperature monitoring. They also required hospital staff and visitors to use protective clothing.6

To remove any possible threat of the virus’s spreading from pigs to humans, Egypt slaughtered all of its more than 300,000 pigs.7 The European Union’s health commissioner warned people not to travel to the United States or Mexico.8

In the United States, initial reactions included closing schools with one or more cases of flu and encouraging people to practice good hygiene habits and to engage in “social distancing,” or limiting their contact with other people. As the pandemic progressed and school closures appeared ineffective, sick people were encouraged to stay home from work or school until twenty-four hours after their symptoms had subsided.9 They were also advised to avoid going to health care facilities unless their symptoms became severe.10
I remember this, because I had kids at home as a result.
 
I left out a correction regarding the current situation: This crisis has been operational only for TWO months in the United States. That is a much more rapid advance than the Swine Flu of 2009. The Swine Flu killed 12,000 people over 12 months. COVID-19 has killed 1700 in three weeks.
 
Last edited:
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.
:roll:

The report was written for the government to guide them on policy. Egads.


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.
zomg... You still didn't read the report! "Suppression" is the South Korean approach!

Suppression, while successful to date in China and South Korea, carries with it enormous social and economic costs which may themselves have significant impact on health and well-being in the short and longer-term....

As case numbers fall, it becomes more feasible to adopt intensive testing, contact tracing and quarantine measures akin to the strategies being employed in South Korea today. Technology – such as mobile phone apps that track an individual’s interactions with other people in society – might allow such a policy to be more effective and scalable if the associated privacy concerns can be overcome. However, if intensive NPI packages aimed at suppression are not maintained, our analysis suggests that transmission will rapidly rebound, potentially producing an epidemic comparable in scale to what would have been seen had no interventions been adopted.

Long-term suppression may not be a feasible policy option in many countries. Our results show that the alternative relatively short-term (3-month) mitigation policy option might reduce deaths seen in the epidemic by up to half, and peak healthcare demand by two-thirds.



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.
:roll:

They publicly released the report, and much of the media did not in fact present it that way.


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.
:roll:

No, dude. It's early days. Any epidemiologist who proclaims "this is exactly how it will go" is not doing their job properly.

And the South Korean approach is in the models.


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.
No, dude.

As you've been told several times: The predictions were only revised UP slightly. The fundamental predictions did not change.


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.
Yet again! The report states that "do nothing" is unlikely, and that strict measures will be very difficult and costly to keep up for a long time. That's why they suggested a South Korea-type approach, as well as modeled several cycles between strict action and relaxed controls:

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

How did you miss that? I think I know.


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.
Every bit you wrote there is false.

• Strict actions were always part of the model.
• Ferguson EXPLICITLY WROTE in his Tweet that things are a bit worse than the 3/16 report predicted, because they realized the R0 was slightly higher.
• They were modeling a South Korean approach in their 3/16 paper.
• No "fine print" was left out, you just didn't read the paper.

It is still very clear that:
• You didn't read the paper
• You don't understand why the report was generated
• You don't understand what it predicted
• You don't realize that every objection you're raising is wrong
 
The numbers are big, but not nearly as big as in the case of the H1N1 virus, or swine flu.
Good grief.

• COVID-19 is just starting. H1N1 has been over for years.

• You're comparing 2 months of COVID-19 in the US to a full year of H1N1.

• H1N1 peaked at 115,000 cases in the US. We're now at 104k cases (with insufficient testing) and will hit 115k tomorrow. And that's with far stricter controls than we ever needed for H1N1.

• The R0 (replication rate) for H1N1 was around 1.4. The R0 for COVID-19 is around 3.0, or more than double that of H1N1.


I don't recall the politicians shutting down our economy in the summer of '09.
That's because H1N1 was not as big a threat as COVID-19.


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."
No, dude. That's sheer nonsense.

The common cold kills almost no one.

The seasonal flu has a mortality rate of about 0.1%.

COVID-19 has a mortality rate of at least 1% and a hospitalization rate of around 20%. Meaning if we did nothing, it would overwhelm pretty much every hospital in the US, and could kill up to 2 million people. Even with controls, we're seeing hospitals in many areas getting overloaded.

That is why we are taking strong measures.

How is it that we are weeks into social distancing, and you don't know this by now?
 
Sure they knew what they were doing - reporting outcomes with various mitigation and suppression measures in place or not. They put it in a report that even climate deniers and WUWT devotees can read and grasp in one sitting! WaPo reported on it accurately, twice. Nice job all around I'd say.

Of course you would.:roll:
 
A perspective:

[h=1]Which Is Worse, The Virus Or The Response To It? (2)[/h]March 26, 2020/ Francis Menton[FONT=&quot]
  • At this writing (Thursday evening), Worldometers is reporting that the U.S. death toll from the Covid-19 virus has reached 1293.
  • That number has been climbing rapidly in percentage terms (266 new deaths today is 20.6% of all U.S. deaths to date), but still is a small fraction of the 20,000 to 60,000 annual deaths from the regular seasonal flu.
  • Every death is a tragedy, but then, we’re all going to die. Nobody regards the regular seasonal flu as any kind of major crisis, let alone a reason to shut down the economy or have the federal government go on a special $2 trillion spending blowout.
  • So will the death toll from this virus ultimately reach or substantially exceed the toll from the regular annual seasonal flu?
READ MORE[/FONT]
 
Well, I must have gotten it right. You couldn't challenge anything I said.

On the other hand, I will challenge what you said. I am not an "it" nor am I a bot. Do you always reply to a post with the intent of pissing a person off? That's pretty sad.

I am a retired teacher, Marine officer, author, and columnist with a lot of time on my hands, and I enjoy writing.

And I also enjoy getting it right.
Spamming threads is something "Marines" and "columnists" do ALL THE TIME!

Cut and paste, C&P!
 
A perspective:

[h=1]Which Is Worse, The Virus Or The Response To It? (2)[/h]March 26, 2020/ Francis Menton[FONT="]
[LIST]
[*]At this writing (Thursday evening), [URL="https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/"]Worldometers is reporting[/URL] that the U.S. death toll from the Covid-19 virus has reached 1293.

[*]That number has been climbing rapidly in percentage terms (266 new deaths today is 20.6% of all U.S. deaths to date), but still is a small fraction of the 20,000 to 60,000 annual deaths from the regular seasonal flu.

[*]Every death is a tragedy, but then, we’re all going to die. Nobody regards the regular seasonal flu as any kind of major crisis, let alone a reason to shut down the economy or have the federal government go on a special $2 trillion spending blowout.

[*]So will the death toll from this virus ultimately reach or substantially exceed the toll from the regular annual seasonal flu?
[/LIST]
READ MORE[/FONT]

Neat! You found another idiot who also cites the climate "scientist" Nic Lewis and his view on the CFR of a pandemic! I wonder if "manhattancontrarian" and Frances Menton, who appears to be a, checks notes, litigation lawyer in NYC, can tie his own shoes, since apparently this moron isn't competent enough to watch the local news in NYC.

Bravo. I think the goal is to cite the dumbest people to show how insane the right wing reaction is to this pandemic. If so, you're doing great, Jack. Keep it up!

Next up - some local drunk at the bar, and maybe after that you can start citing insurance salesmen, and maybe a guy who installs alarm systems. What's their view on the CFR of a pandemic and the appropriate local and national response. Inquiring minds want to know! After all - everyone's opinion is worth just as much as any other opinion, and we should consult both the ignorant and stupid, along with experts!
 
Last edited:
Well, that's an incredibly dishonest summary of their work.
Wrong, its the truth- pity youve got too much stars in your eyes to see it.

The entire point if the model was to inform UK and US decision makers about the impact of various mitigation or suppression strategies. So out of necessity they modeled impact of various efforts, alone and in combination.
Wrong again. The point of the modeling was to advance an agenda using made up numbers to scare the politicians and the gullible. Sadly, it succeeded.

There's no need to discuss the "do nothing" strategy since the UK locked down the country a couple days ago, and is planning on an extensive test and trace program. So he testified to what the model with THAT strategy in place.
Of course he did. He was instrumental with regards to putting that strategy in place and now he can still make up whatever numbers he wants to make it look like he was right.

If you think that scientists are completely neutral and do everything purely for the benefit of everyone and not themselves then you are terribly naive. They are people, just like everyone else, and they want their name in lights.

They won't know how accurate their predictions are/were for at least a year.
Ferguson has already made adjustment to his silly modeling-it shows you just how wrong it was to begin with.

:roll:

If you actually bothered to read the report, you'd see that they made specific projections based on different concrete options. What a surprise, another "critic" who can't be bothered to read before attacking.
Different concrete options my butt. You have no idea what modeling is- its just inputting numbers- you can do 10 different ones that show 10 different results. when you lump them all as one study and then take credit for the one closest to what you wrote, then you can pretend to claim victory. Pure BS.
 
Neat! You found another idiot who also cites the climate "scientist" Nic Lewis and his view on the CFR of a pandemic! I wonder if "manhattancontrarian" and Frances Menton, who appears to be a, checks notes, litigation lawyer in NYC, can tie his own shoes, since apparently this moron isn't competent enough to watch the local news in NYC.

Bravo. I think the goal is to cite the dumbest people to show how insane the right wing reaction is to this pandemic. If so, you're doing great, Jack. Keep it up!

Next up - some local drunk at the bar, and maybe after that you can start citing insurance salesmen, and maybe a guy who installs alarm systems. What's their view on the CFR of a pandemic and the appropriate local and national response. Inquiring minds want to know! After all - everyone's opinion is worth just as much as any other opinion, and we should consult both the ignorant and stupid, along with experts!

A display of ill temper to disguise the emptiness of your argument.
 
Wrong, its the truth- pity youve got too much stars in your eyes to see it.

You said, "The ones who made it werent sure of their own outcomes so they put out multiple possibilities just to cover their asses, and they will immediately just ignore the ones that didnt come true and say they were right all the time. It's pure bull****."

Which possibilities did they ignore in the testimony to parliament? The ones NOT IN PLACE.

And it's just a fact that the modeling extends out at least 18 months. We and the UK are about 3 months into this pandemic. So they don't know and cannot know for more than a year from now which ones did not come true.

Wrong again. The point of the modeling was to advance an agenda using made up numbers to scare the politicians and the gullible. Sadly, it succeeded.

You are calling them made up because you ignorantly assume they're wrong. Of course if the modeling is correct, then scaring the politicians into good decisions is entirely appropriate. It's funny that you call others "gullible" when it's you dismissing the best available data cause you don't like it and are being told by right wing blowhards and liars that they're wrong. You have no actual BASIS to dismiss the UK model - you are doing it because the talking points demand that all expert opinion is dismissed.

Of course he did. He was instrumental with regards to putting that strategy in place and now he can still make up whatever numbers he wants to make it look like he was right.

What would it look like if he wasn't "making up numbers" and was making honest projections based on the data available to him? Presumably he'd come to different conclusions you find more convenient, but otherwise, how do you tell the difference? How can I tell the difference?

If you think that scientists are completely neutral and do everything purely for the benefit of everyone and not themselves then you are terribly naive. They are people, just like everyone else, and they want their name in lights.

That's a straw man. No, they're not "completely neutral" and my guess is pandemic experts have a tendency to save lives versus risk 100s of thousands based on ignorant gut hunches, which appears to be your preferred strategy.

Ferguson has already made adjustment to his silly modeling-it shows you just how wrong it was to begin with.

Yes, when facts change and efforts to contain the pandemic change, the model has to change with it to reflect new data and reality on the ground at that time. And it will be wrong - perhaps off by 50% either direction. We'll know that in a year or more. What's the alternative?

Different concrete options my butt. You have no idea what modeling is- its just inputting numbers- you can do 10 different ones that show 10 different results. when you lump them all as one study and then take credit for the one closest to what you wrote, then you can pretend to claim victory. Pure BS.

So you don't like modeling. How do you suggest making decisions in a pandemic? I assume you wouldn't use modeling, so should we ask some lawyers what they think about public health policy? How about get the truck drivers' views? Or accountants like me? Your local drunk will have an opinion - why not let him set the course for the country?

How do we evaluate the impact of options without models? Take a WAG? Poll the public? Pull it out of our rear ends? Throw a dart?

I'm open to suggestions. What's yours, since you dismiss modeling by experts?
 
Back
Top Bottom