Epidemiologist Behind Virus Model That Many States Rely On Drastically Revises Data!

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: Grambler

My guess would be that the isolation and social distancing frees up medical resources that would otherwise be expended in their absence that, in turn, improves the prognoses of those already infected.

Even with mitigation the predicted deaths is a horrifying number.

up to 59000 a year in the US died of the regular old flu.

Thats about the same number we see every year.

That too is horrific.

Must we shut down the country over that too?

a reply to: Grambler

That's not the conversation we were having. We were discussing what the information in the OP suggests specifically about this virus.

So the REAL reason for the downward 'revision' of the COVID model is not a revision at all:

Lipsitch goes on to say, “We received a request to model dozens of scenarios from the US government at 5pm on Tuesday. We responded to many of these on Wednesday evening, thanks to fast and careful work by @StephenKissler. This was done in good faith in order to help support the USG response.

According to Dr. Lipsitch, Dr. Bix is relying on, and making public statements about, the 'best-case-scenario' model. He does not, however, believe taht outcome is achievable in the U.S.

So, the scenario Dr. Birx is ‘assuring’ us about is one in which we somehow escape Italy’s problem of overloaded healthcare system despite the fact that social distancing is not really happening in large parts of the U.S.

Lipsitch added, “We remain woefully behind on testing capacity, especially in many parts of the country. Like a forest fire, intense control in one place fails if there are sparks from other places. We must strengthen the weak links. But test reagents, swabs, PPE remain in short supply.”

The epidemiologist adds, “Solving the testing problems will not be easy, despite heroic local and state efforts to make up for the feckless federal efforts on this front. Supply chains are delicate, and it may not be possible to come from behind and establish Korea-level testing capacity.

So no, he did not revise downward his model. Birx is choosing to use the butterflies and zebras model that assumes we solve the limited testing issues and everyone does their part. Which is most certainly not happening.

Link

The actual death toll in Europe must be taken into account:
Coronavirus death toll Europe, official numbers - NOW AVAILABLE!

originally posted by: shawmanfromny
The virus model I'm referring to is the Imperial College London model, which is headed by Professor/Epidemiologist Neil Ferguson.

Many state governors and city mayors in the US are using an online mapping tool called COVID Act Now, which uses the data from the Imperial College London virus model. These US state and local officials use this tool to make decisions on shelter-in-place orders and what needs to be closed in their state/cities.

Here's some interesting information on the mapping tool site COVID Act Now: Founders of the site include Democratic Rep. Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins and three Silicon Valley tech workers and Democratic activists — Zachary Rosen, Max Henderson, and Igor Kofman — who are all also donors to various Democratic campaigns and political organizations since 2016. Henderson and Kofman donated to the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2016, while Rosen donated to the Democratic National Committee, recently resigned Democratic Rep. Katie Hill, and other Democratic candidates. Prior to building the COVID Act Now website, Kofman created an online game designed to raise $1 million for the eventual 2020 Democratic candidate and defeat President Trump. The game’s website is now defunct.

In an article published on March 24, Oxford epidemiologist Sunetra Gupta stated that the Imperial College London model was flawed:

Government policy and guidance crafted in an effort to “flatten the curve” of coronavirus-related deaths has largely been based upon an Imperial College London model headed by Professor Neil Ferguson.

The terrifying model shows that as many as 2.2 million Americans could perish from the virus if no action is taken, peaking in June.

However, that model is likely highly flawed, Oxford epidemiologist Sunetra Gupta argues.

LINK

Yesterday, epidemiologist Neil Ferguson offered a massive revision to his model on Wednesday.

Ferguson’s model projected 2.2 million dead people in the United States and 500,000 in the U.K. from COVID-19 if no action were taken to slow the virus and blunt its curve.

However, after just one day of ordered lockdowns in the U.K., Ferguson is presenting drastically downgraded estimates, revealing that far more people likely have the virus than his team figured. Now, the epidemiologist predicts, hospitals will be just fine taking on COVID-19 patients and estimates 20,000 or far fewer people will die from the virus itself or from its agitation of other ailments, as reported by New Scientist Wednesday.

Ferguson thus dropped his prediction from 500,000 dead to 20,000.

Author and former New York Times reporter Alex Berenson broke down the bombshell report via Twitter on Thursday morning (view Twitter thread below).

“This is a remarkable turn from Neil Ferguson, who led the [Imperial College] authors who warned of 500,000 UK deaths — and who has now himself tested positive for #COVID,” started Berenson.

LINK

So much for the prediction of 2.2 million dead people in the United States...I guess the sky isn't falling after all. I wonder if this new revelation will be discussed by the fear mongering media in the US? I have a hunch President Trump is aware of this and it's probably the reason why he wants to get people back to work by Easter. Thoughts?

Nuggets like this are going to keep coming out.

The problem with throwing out “models” and “statistics” for “predictions” is that there are lots of people who pay attention that realize it doesn’t sound right. Bold claims require bold evidence. In this case, a bold prediction and then no sharing of methodology.

If this keeps up it won’t be long until we realize this was a hoax.

Then the question becomes what do we do about it.

a reply to: EnigmaChaser

In this case, a bold prediction and then no sharing of methodology.

Wrong, the methodology is listed in the study, which can be downloaded here.

a reply to: Grambler


59k dead in a year is not the same as 59K dead in three months.

a reply to: jtma508

You are right. It's not happening and some governors are just acting stupid.
The order for social distancing must be local of course but a word on its effectiveness from the top would also go a long way.
Florida is riding the bull it seems.
Meanwhile when I go out I wear a mask and gloves cuz I just gotta see how this # show ends.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Grambler


59k dead in a year is not the same as 59K dead in three months.

But it's still 59K 😎

a reply to: Mach2

How would you know. You have just made a mistake. Climate models are usually accurate and the INTERPRETATION of data is where the counter argument is found against man made climate change and its impact.

It doesn't sound as cool to the misinformed but you also get the benefit of not looking like an idiot to those who know what they are talking about.

Unless you actually believe that most science is inaccurate....and its all so clear from a belligerent "evil science " point of view to you.

Then go ahead and have fun being ridiculous while chastising othrs.