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

[Lord of Planar]

Sorry, but you either didn't read the study and are ignorant about what it actually claimed, or are lying. It's one of the two. :shrug:

What is it claiming other than modeled results, based on too many unknowns? I have two problems with a quick review of the study.

1) They claim people who are symptomatic are only 50% more contagious than those who are asymptomatic. That seems ridiculous to me. It should be far more, once people started being concerned with germ hygiene.

2) SARS-CoV-2 is only mentioned once. There is no indication in the study as to how many people infected with SARS-CoV-2, become symptomatic with COVID-19.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Explain how in your own words. Or do you think a random cite posted by Judith Curry is a mic drop moment? If you believe it, you're wrong.



I'm unclear what point I'm supposed to get from a bunch of right wingers either dishonestly summarizing the original study, or repeating ignorant claims about what it predicted. As I said, the only people throwing out the 2.2 million/500k claim were right wing liars or idiots/ignoramuses. You quoted several making my point, which is appreciated - Thank You! - but I am not sure that was your actual point.

If not what was it? Thanks.

How was it dishonest?

The same people who first gave the alarming numbers revised them down, dramatically.

It's OK. I have already seen you are one of the lefties here who bases fact on confirmation bias.

 

[Lord of Planar]

That's because... people in the US and UK were not doing enough at the time.

Trump didn't change his tune until after the 3/12 report came out.

Boris didn't take strong action until several days after the report came out.

The report very likely convinced both US and UK governments to act.



:roll:

Why am I not surprised that you didn't even skim the report?

The report compared multiple variations of two scenarios: mitigation and suppression. It only modeled the "(unlikely) absence of any control measures or spontaneous changes in individual behaviour" as a benchmark to compare the myriad options, like so:

View attachment 67276483



:roll:

The only "confusion" is deliberate misinformation spread by the people who don't want to admit that COVID-19 is serious, and is going to be a long slog.

The paper was very clear on why mitigation and/or suppression methods might be necessary for so long. Again, another indication you didn't bother to read it.

To avoid a rebound in transmission, these policies will need to be maintained until large stocks of
vaccine are available to immunise the population – which could be 18 months or more.



The "new forecast" is basically the same as the old one -- just a little bit worse, as the virus has a slightly higher R0 value than they estimated 10 days ago. From the March 16th report:

The measures used to achieve suppression might also evolve over time. 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.



The scientists are being as clear as possible. You'd know that if you bothered to read what they are writing.

See my post 76.

 

[Lord of Planar]

No, no! Leftist on these boards are touting up to 1 million deaths! Nobody would say something that stupid without solid facts to back it up.

Alarmists are like that all the time.

 

[Jack Hays]

What they didn't do was abandon their model in any way. You don't have to listen to me - here's the lead author:

https://twitter.com/neil_ferguson/status/1243294815200124928

View attachment 67276490



LOL. On the other hand a researcher who took the actual data from the Diamond Cruise ship and chopped 30% off the measured CFR!

From Lewis:

Yes. Not a problem. As for the UK team, it's really beyond dispute that Ferguson's public course correction was a reaction to the runaway worst-case public narrative that the team had done nothing to tamp down up to then.

 

[Visbek]

But no one said anything about the US and UK not doing enough at the time. What I did say was: "the study was promoted as IF people were doing little or nothing (and) it was impossible to measure" the reality against "what the study was projecting only as binary choices."

:roll:

The paper was not written as a criticism of government responses as of 3/16. It was not "promoting" a "do nothing" strategy. It was written to give the UK government an idea of the possible effectiveness of different strategies.

And again, Ferguson a) did not write the headlines, and b) became ill within a few days of the report being released.

It avoided comparing the use of volunteerism or spontaneous choices made in the real world by people were doing so already...

In other words, you STILL haven't read the paper. Good to know.

The paper was "very clear" except when it wasn't.

How would you know? You haven't read it.

As many strategies were being employed already prior to the paper's published date....

Yet again! It wasn't trying to evaluate the current strategies. Let us know when you get a clue.

Ferguson has already admitted that there is confusion, and says that he should clear it up. So far he has not done so. We will wait...

:roll:

The "confusion" was that people like you are deliberately misrepresenting his work.

 

[Visbek]

Nope. Either this report, or these scientists, and/or the press has been misleading people since this thing came out.

No, they haven't. You just didn't bother to read the report. Thus, you are in no position to evaluate it.

 

[Visbek]

As Ferguson himself tweets, the paper was a calculation of deaths between doing nothing and five specific "intense public controls", as if none of the public was following some of those controls on their own. So yes. those are binary choices of "kind" not "degree".

LOL

Not only have you failed to read the report, you didn't read his Tweets. I'm also guessing you didn't actually bother to review his testimony, either.

In fact, I doubt you read many MSM articles, either.

NY Times -- Top Epidemiologist: UK Had No Time to Lose on Coronavirus Battle
Top Epidemiologist: UK Had No Time to Lose on Coronavirus Battle - The New York Times

CNN -- US, UK coronavirus strategies shifted following UK epidemiologists' ominous report
US, UK coronavirus strategies shifted following epidemiologists' ominous report - CNN

Guardian -- New data, new policy: why UK's coronavirus strategy changed
New data, new policy: why UK's coronavirus strategy changed | World news | The Guardian

I.e. what really happened is that you read an article somewhere which is trying to trash Ferguson, because he's suggesting we need to keep up the pressure, and you apparently want to sit in a pew on Easter Mass.

So then he would answer....

:roll:

You didn't read the report.
You didn't read his Tweets properly.
You don't understand the purpose of the report.
You don't understand its methodology.
You are in no position whatsoever to answer for him.

You're obviously attacking a straw man, not what Ferguson et al actually wrote or actually said. Hard pass.

The question is NOT if his paper had loopholes, exceptions, or ambiguities. The dispute is over the messaging....

And again: Ferguson is not an editor at Fox News. He's not in any Public Relations department of the UK government. The paper was clear. Mainstream media got it.

I.e. it is not Ferguson's fault that you can't be bothered to read things that you're criticizing.

 

[PoS]

LOL

Not only have you failed to read the report, you didn't read his Tweets. I'm also guessing you didn't actually bother to review his testimony, either.

In fact, I doubt you read many MSM articles, either.

NY Times -- Top Epidemiologist: UK Had No Time to Lose on Coronavirus Battle
Top Epidemiologist: UK Had No Time to Lose on Coronavirus Battle - The New York Times

CNN -- US, UK coronavirus strategies shifted following UK epidemiologists' ominous report
US, UK coronavirus strategies shifted following epidemiologists' ominous report - CNN

Guardian -- New data, new policy: why UK's coronavirus strategy changed
New data, new policy: why UK's coronavirus strategy changed | World news | The Guardian

I.e. what really happened is that you read an article somewhere which is trying to trash Ferguson, because he's suggesting we need to keep up the pressure, and you apparently want to sit in a pew on Easter Mass.



:roll:

You didn't read the report.
You didn't read his Tweets properly.
You don't understand the purpose of the report.
You don't understand its methodology.
You are in no position whatsoever to answer for him.

You're obviously attacking a straw man, not what Ferguson et al actually wrote or actually said. Hard pass.



And again: Ferguson is not an editor at Fox News. He's not in any Public Relations department of the UK government. The paper was clear. Mainstream media got it.

I.e. it is not Ferguson's fault that you can't be bothered to read things that you're criticizing.

LOOOLLL right. Anytime a modeling prediction fails (which is like, all the time) your excuse is always: "well, you didnt understand it!" Totally pathetic! Just be a man and admit youre wrong already. :lamo

 

[NWRatCon]

LOOOLLL right. Anytime a modeling prediction fails (which is like, all the time) your excuse is always: "well, you didnt understand it!" Totally pathetic! Just be a man and admit youre wrong already. :lamo

Um, who are you trying to belittle with this snark? If it is the OP, you have a point. If it is Visbeck, you're so far off the mark as to be laughable. Is that the point of your emoji?

 

[PoS]

Um, who are you trying to belittle with this snark? If it is the OP, you have a point. If it is Visbeck, you're so far off the mark as to be laughable. Is that the point of your emoji?

Looks like the "didnt understand it part" applies to you too. :lol:

 

[NWRatCon]

Looks like the "didnt understand it part" applies to you too. :lol:

Yeah, I didn't understand just how clueless and irrelevant your comment is? Visbeck quite clearly laid out why the OP is erroneous. Do you have a comment on that reality, or are you just being a pissant?

 

[JasperL]

What is it claiming other than modeled results, based on too many unknowns? I have two problems with a quick review of the study.

1) They claim people who are symptomatic are only 50% more contagious than those who are asymptomatic. That seems ridiculous to me. It should be far more, once people started being concerned with germ hygiene.

Your hunches don't substitute for evidence.

2) SARS-CoV-2 is only mentioned once. There is no indication in the study as to how many people infected with SARS-CoV-2, become symptomatic with COVID-19.

They estimate hospitalization rates and ICU demand, and deaths. They don't care in that model about how many get sick enough to have symptoms but don't need medical care in a facility and will recover at home. It's not relevant to their question - deaths and demands on the healthcare system, capacity limits, etc.

 

[Jack Hays]

LOL

Not only have you failed to read the report, you didn't read his Tweets. I'm also guessing you didn't actually bother to review his testimony, either.

In fact, I doubt you read many MSM articles, either.

NY Times -- Top Epidemiologist: UK Had No Time to Lose on Coronavirus Battle
Top Epidemiologist: UK Had No Time to Lose on Coronavirus Battle - The New York Times

CNN -- US, UK coronavirus strategies shifted following UK epidemiologists' ominous report
US, UK coronavirus strategies shifted following epidemiologists' ominous report - CNN

Guardian -- New data, new policy: why UK's coronavirus strategy changed
New data, new policy: why UK's coronavirus strategy changed | World news | The Guardian

I.e. what really happened is that you read an article somewhere which is trying to trash Ferguson, because he's suggesting we need to keep up the pressure, and you apparently want to sit in a pew on Easter Mass.



:roll:

You didn't read the report.
You didn't read his Tweets properly.
You don't understand the purpose of the report.
You don't understand its methodology.
You are in no position whatsoever to answer for him.

You're obviously attacking a straw man, not what Ferguson et al actually wrote or actually said. Hard pass.



And again: Ferguson is not an editor at Fox News. He's not in any Public Relations department of the UK government. The paper was clear. Mainstream media got it.

I.e. it is not Ferguson's fault that you can't be bothered to read things that you're criticizing.

Yeah, I didn't understand just how clueless and irrelevant your comment is? Visbeck quite clearly laid out why the OP is erroneous. Do you have a comment on that reality, or are you just being a pissant?

Ferguson et al were compelled to publicly change course because the worst-case public narrative they had unleashed was threatening to make them look ridiculous.

 

[JasperL]

How was it dishonest?

The same people who first gave the alarming numbers revised them down, dramatically.

So with the strict measures in place, but not including test and trace, their model predicted deaths ranging from 5,000 - 46,000 depending on the R0. How is the new estimate of 20k with test and trace a dramatic downward revision? Did you actually read the study? See Table 4 for example.

It's OK. I have already seen you are one of the lefties here who bases fact on confirmation bias.

No, I just read the study and know what it claimed and what it didn't. It's clear almost all the conservatives on here trashing it never clicked on the link. It appears you still haven't bothered to read it, or if you did somehow missed the basics.

 

[JasperL]

Ferguson et al were compelled to publicly change course because the worst-case public narrative they had unleashed was threatening to make them look ridiculous.

They didn't change course, and if anyone "unleashed" a worst case narrative by not reading the study or dishonestly/stupidly reporting what it found, it was not Ferguson et al. but idiot journalists or TV producers. Otherwise, you're spot on.

 

[NWRatCon]

Ferguson et al were compelled to publicly change course because the worst-case public narrative they had unleashed was threatening to make them look ridiculous.

Wow, that is some serious "massaging reality" there, my friend. They provided a report, with backup data. It was misinterpreted by some people (especially a number of posters here) and they clarified it to counteract the misinterpretation. That has now been continued here. Are you trying to blame Ferguson, et al, for the misinformation campaign?

 

[Jack Hays]

They didn't change course, and if anyone "unleashed" a worst case narrative by not reading the study or dishonestly/stupidly reporting what it found, it was not Ferguson et al. but idiot journalists or TV producers. Otherwise, you're spot on.

Nope. Ferguson et al could have stopped the worst-case runaway train in the public narrative any time. They did not, until they did.

 

[Jack Hays]

Wow, that is some serious "massaging reality" there, my friend. They provided a report, with backup data. It was misinterpreted by some people (especially a number of posters here) and they clarified it to counteract the misinterpretation. That has now been continued here. Are you trying to blame Ferguson, et al, for the misinformation campaign?

They let the worst-case public narrative run until it became embarrassing (and until Nic Lewis rebutted their findings).

 

[NWRatCon]

Your hunches don't substitute for evidence.




They estimate hospitalization rates and ICU demand, and deaths. They don't care in that model about how many get sick enough to have symptoms but don't need medical care in a facility and will recover at home. It's not relevant to their question - deaths and demands on the healthcare system, capacity limits, etc.

I get really, really frustrated by [certain posters] who continually post clueless posts based upon preconceived notions/political viewpoints and refuse to conduct even a cursory review of the underlying data or documents. I applaud your persistence in trying to keep comments directed to the actual document.

 

[NWRatCon]

They let the worst-case public narrative run until it became embarrassing (and until Nic Lewis rebutted their findings).

If only you had a clue what the **** you were talking about. It would be refreshing (although not expected). This is LITERALLY a direct corollary to victim shaming.

 

[JasperL]

Nope. Ferguson et al could have stopped the worst-case runaway train in the public narrative any time. They did not, until they did.

All any of the dumb or dishonest reporters/TV talking heads/producers had to do was....read the study. You still haven't or you would know that.

 

[Jack Hays]

All any of the dumb or dishonest reporters/TV talking heads/producers had to do was....read the study. You still haven't or you would know that.

Doesn't absolve the authors of their responsibility.

 

[JasperL]

They let the worst-case public narrative run until it became embarrassing (and until Nic Lewis rebutted their findings).

Nic Lewis didn't "rebut" anything. He offered a different estimate using only the Diamond Princess population, which might or might not be a better proxy for the UK/US. They also took actual death rates from that highly studied population and chopped off 30% from the actual.

 

[Jack Hays]

Nic Lewis didn't "rebut" anything. He offered a different estimate using only the Diamond Princess population, which might or might not be a better proxy for the UK/US. They also took actual death rates from that highly studied population and chopped off 30% from the actual.

We'll see who is more accurate in the end. My money's on Lewis.