NOW someone attempts to make lemonade out of a lemon, claiming not only that there has been full social distancing BUT that it was "super full distancing" so THAT explains why the IHME model turned to be correct...
What on Earth are you talking about? The IHME model hasn't "turned out to be correct" yet.
What's happening is that IHME periodically updates their model, based on factors like actual rates of new cases, hospitalizations, number of hospital beds, deaths, R0 and so on. They've done this several times, and will continue to do so.
Nor is it a criticism to recognize that IHME is made for a specific purpose, to help hospitals plan for caseloads.
First, the update note at the IHME DO NOT even discuss, let alone claim, that the revision downward is due to EXTRA social distancing.
The model updates are right here, dude.
- Earlier models were based on Wuhan. They updated the model to incorporate data from Spain and Italy, including how long it takes for social distancing policy to take effect.
- They track four main distancing methods (school closures, stay-at-home orders, non-essential business closures, and travel limitations.) Previously they were given equal weight, now they are weighed differently.
- They're comparing past predictions to actual outcomes to reduce uncertainties.
- They adjusted the model to better handle inconsistencies in some of the reports.
And so on. And yes, some of it is due to states implementing controls.
The model can't predict when states are going to issue stay-at-home orders.
...much is still unknown about this virus. We don't know it's natural infection rate (only a range of possibilities), it's natural mortality rate, or how much other factors affect it's expression; climate, UV exposure, population density, etc.
There are no such things as "natural" infection or mortality rates. Those are
always impacted by the society (e.g. do people shake hands? Do people have clean water?) and medical resources (are there enough hospital beds?) However, they
do know enough to develop useful models. They also know that the models become more precise when they compare the previous predictions to actual results, and of course update the models for changes in real-world conditions.
Four, it is also curious that OTHER urban areas are not virulent 'hot spots' : one hear's nothing about Chicago, Los Angles, Dallas, Denver, etc. It may well be that it takes very high population concentration's to maintain an epidemic...
Los Angeles is 4 times more dense than New Orleans. Try again.
Five, it is also impossible to know whether formal SD policy made a difference compared to what people do anyway, voluntarily.
No, it isn't. There is no question that in the US, compulsory measures will work much faster than voluntary ones.
I mean, really. How many people were on the beaches during Spring Break? How many were there when those beaches were closed?
But you could have tracked the data, without knowing the mechanisms, to predict when and how this will end - in other words, look at the charts.
What the what?
Look at what charts?
When do you look at the charts?
Are you really suggesting that we should replace models based on actual replication rates and actual responses, to... you just drawing random lines on a piece of paper?