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

[Lord of Planar]

I do understand it. Perhaps you misspoke. Here's your comment:

"What I want to know is how many people have been infected with SARS-CoV-2, but not even tested for COVID-19."

Those "tested for COVID-19" will have been tested in fact for the virus - SARS-CoV-2.



I know the distinction and told you what the differences were - you quoted me explaining the difference - "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."

OK, so what you meant to say, I think, is by only testing those with possible symptoms of the disease CV19 the testing misses perhaps 95% of those who have been exposed to the virus, SARS-CoV-2.

My point is there are large numbers of people who show no symptoms who have contracted it.

 

[JasperL]

My point is there are large numbers of people who show no symptoms who have contracted it.

That's what I thought, but don't blame the rest of us for your poor writing...

 

[JasperL]

Your opinions about commentary are just that, and do not entitle you to abusive language. This will be our last exchange.
Nic Lewis compelled the retraction of Resplandy et al. He also has peer-reviewed publications to his credit.
Good luck in your future endeavors.

Sorry that I don't tolerate liars and hacks writing from positions of authority. We shouldn't excuse their dishonesty, or their purpose, which is to undermine public health experts, undermine expertise, which will undermine the response, and that will in fact KILL PEOPLE.

And it's a feature of the general right wing disdain for expertise that someone who's an expert in, say, climate can get up to speed on the nuances of pandemics in a week or so and because of this we should treat the views of the ignorant and uninformed on CFR and R0 the same as the UK team or US people who have spent a career doing this. It's deeply dishonest, and it's not harmless. Society need not show that approach any respect IMO.

 

[Jack Hays]

[h=2]Imperial College UK COVID-19 numbers don’t seem to add up[/h][FONT=&quot]Posted on April 1, 2020 by niclewis | 41 comments[/FONT]
By Nic Lewis
Introduction and summary
A study published two weeks ago by the COVID-19 Response Team from Imperial College (Ferguson20[1]) appears to be largely responsible for driving UK government policy actions. The study is not peer reviewed; indeed, it seems not to have been externally reviewed at all. Moreover, the computer code used to produce the estimates in the study – which on Ferguson’s own admission is old, unverified and documented inadequately, if at all – has still not been published. That, in my view, shows a worrying approach to a matter of vital public concern.
Continue reading →