Influential Covid-19 Models Were Horrifically Inaccurate & The Economic Decision To Shutdown The Economy Based On Them Was Wrong

[easyt65]

The United States government shut down one of the strongest economies this nation has ever seen as it was still roaring, and the catastrophic decision to do so was based on projections by liberal academia experts who used obviously a flawed model / flawed models...

Numerous articles that have been written the last few weeks have begun to question HOW COULD 'EXPERTS' COULD HAVE CREATED A COVID-19 MODEL ADOPTED AND USED TO BASE SUCH MONUMENTAL POLICY UPON BE / HAVE BEEN SO EXTREMELY FAR OFF / FLAWED?


“It’s not a model that most of us in the infectious disease epidemiology field think is well suited” to projecting Covid-19 deaths, epidemiologist Marc Lipsitch of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health told reporters this week, referring to projections by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington."

So the US Government, specifically the Trump administration, was pressured to accept this model and to base the decision to shut down the country - and the roaring economy - on this model advocated by such experts as this member of elitist Liberal academia, an 'expert' on epidemiology from Harvard.
-- Can anyone tell me the last time professors and experts rom liberal elitist indoctrination camps, er...colleges...ever supported Conservatives, Conservative ideology, or a Conservative President?

"A widely followed model for projecting Covid-19 deaths in the U.S. is producing results that have been bouncing up and down like an unpredictable fever, and now epidemiologists are criticizing it as flawed and misleading for both the public and policy makers. In particular, they warn against relying on it as the basis for government decision-making, including on “re-opening America.”

Epidemiologists are now speaking out against the model advocated as the one this administration's policies should be based off of in this pandemic....

Several scientists have come out to say that 'experts' SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN THIS FAR OFF on their modeling...and more than one scientist is questioning WHY there was so much pressure applied to use it as the basis for critical policy decision:

"Others experts, including some colleagues of the model-makers, are even harsher. “That the IHME model keeps changing is evidence of its lack of reliability as a predictive tool,” said epidemiologist Ruth Etzioni of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, who has served on a search committee for IHME. “That it is being used for policy decisions and its results interpreted wrongly is a travesty unfolding before our eyes.”

The catastrophic impact on our economy due to policy decisions based on this horrifically flawed model will inevitably cause the government to make the argument that the final / actual infected and mortality rates are so far off the models due to the policy decisions made; however, this will be more 'political posturing' than a more factual assessment and confirmation that the models were inexplicably off.


There are 2 tried-and-true models that were completely ignored. Instead the model pushed was one that inspired far less confidence:

There are two tried-and-true ways to model an epidemic. The most established, dating back a century, calculates how many people are susceptible to a virus (in the case of the new coronavirus, everyone), how many become exposed, how many of those become infected, and how many recover and therefore have immunity (at least for a while).

"IHME uses neither a SEIR nor an agent-based approach. It doesn’t even try to model the transmission of disease, or the incubation period, or other features of Covid-19, as SEIR and agent-based models at Imperial College London and others do. It doesn’t try to account for how many infected people interact with how many others, how many additional cases each earlier case causes, or other facts of disease transmission that have been the foundation of epidemiology models for decades.

Instead, IHME starts with data from cities where Covid-19 struck before it hit the U.S., first Wuhan and now 19 cities in Italy and Spain."

The most obvious problem with IHME is the blind trust placed in China and the WHO when the virus was 1st reported, trust that was unwarranted. Evidence shows that China was NOT forthcoming with information about the virus in a timely manner - in fact, evidence shows China hid the outbreak. For example, evidence shows China knew about the outbreak as early as OCTOBER 2019 and not only hid news of the outbreak but also allowed the epidemic to spread globally by refusing to cancel international travel from the very epicenter of its outbreak. Furthermore, evidence shows the WHO knew about the epidemic sooner than revealed and were actually misleading the rest of the world by claiming COVID-19 was not a problem, that China was containing the outbreak, and encouraging countries NOT to close its border and impose Travel Bans. CHINA AND THE WHO MISLED THE REST OF THE WORLD FOR MONTHS, AND IN SITUATIONS LIKE THIS TIME = LIVES LOST!

Based on the fact that the IHME begins with and is based on honest, complete data shared by countries / governments / scientists - which China and the WHO STILL has not done, the model was disastrously wrong / inaccurate from the very start.

Many epidemiologists are now pointing out this is why the IHME should never have been considered and definitely should not been pushed as the model to use over the other 2 that do not rely on other governments' / bodies' transparency / willingness to share data.

After OFFICIALLY reporting their epidemic to the WHO China refused to share data, refused to allow the CDC to come in to assess and offer help, they hid / falsified their numbers, and even engaged in propaganda by attempting to claim the USN was responsible for introducing / releasing COVID-19 in China....

So how the hell did an 'expert epidemiologist' from Liberal elitist academia come to the conclusion that US policy should be based IHME that relied on non-existent cooperation, transparency, and virus data-sharing by the Chinese?

Influential Covid-19 model uses flawed methods and shouldn't guide U.S. policies, critics say

A widely followed model for projecting #coronavirus deaths in the U.S. is producing results that have been bouncing up and down like an unpredictable fever.

www.statnews.com

.

 

[Canon Shooter]

You know, the whole "armchair quarterback" thing gets old real quick.

The reality is that there was no way to know what this thing was going to do. What we knew was we had a highly communicable virus that was getting out of control.

Were poor decisions made? Yes, they were. Were good decisions made? Yes, they were. And not a swignin' dick on this forum would've been able to make decisions which were any more informed than those made by the administration.

Things seem to be slowly coming back around. I know, in Florida, our beaches are open. Local businesses are looking at being able to open, maybe with some restrictions, before too much longer.

I talked to a guy who recently opened a high-end pawn shop here in town (I was selling him some silver), and I asked how he was doing. Now, because pawn shops make loans, they are technically considered to be a bank and, as such, are considered an "essential" business.

He said that, while business was slow, he was also doing business with every single person who walked through his door. No one has been coming in to browse. People come in to buy things, to pawn something or to sell something. He said not a single person has come into his store since he opened without there being some sort of business transaction. He felt that was a positive, and I'd have to agree with him.

So, yeah, undoubtedly mistakes were made. But we were dealing with something which was unprecedented and, in the face of something like that, you err on the side of caution...

 

[Uncensored2008]

Imagine if an accountant for a company created a budget that was 73% wrong. He would be fired and discredited. The IMHE model found divergence and variance to the model in a whopping 73% of indicators.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You know, the whole "armchair quarterback" thing gets old real quick.

The reality is that there was no way to know what this thing was going to do. What we knew was we had a highly communicable virus that was getting out of control.

Were poor decisions made? Yes, they were. Were good decisions made? Yes, they were. And not a swignin' dick on this forum would've been able to make decisions which were any more informed than those made by the administration.

Things seem to be slowly coming back around. I know, in Florida, our beaches are open. Local businesses are looking at being able to open, maybe with some restrictions, before too much longer.

I talked to a guy who recently opened a high-end pawn shop here in town (I was selling him some silver), and I asked how he was doing. Now, because pawn shops make loans, they are technically considered to be a bank and, as such, are considered an "essential" business.

He said that, while business was slow, he was also doing business with every single person who walked through his door. No one has been coming in to browse. People come in to buy things, to pawn something or to sell something. He said not a single person has come into his store since he opened without there being some sort of business transaction. He felt that was a positive, and I'd have to agree with him.

So, yeah, undoubtedly mistakes were made. But we were dealing with something which was unprecedented and, in the face of something like that, you err on the side of caution...

And yet the same people who so badly fucked this up will demand we destroy our economy and way of life over climate models.

Predictive models are useless - fact. Follow the science.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

The United States government shut down one of the strongest economies this nation has ever seen as it was still roaring, and the catastrophic decision to do so was based on projections by liberal academia experts who used obviously a flawed model / flawed models...

Numerous articles that have been written the last few weeks have begun to question HOW COULD 'EXPERTS' COULD HAVE CREATED A COVID-19 MODEL ADOPTED AND USED TO BASE SUCH MONUMENTAL POLICY UPON BE / HAVE BEEN SO EXTREMELY FAR OFF / FLAWED?


“It’s not a model that most of us in the infectious disease epidemiology field think is well suited” to projecting Covid-19 deaths, epidemiologist Marc Lipsitch of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health told reporters this week, referring to projections by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington."

So the US Government, specifically the Trump administration, was pressured to accept this model and to base the decision to shut down the country - and the roaring economy - on this model advocated by such experts as this member of elitist Liberal academia, an 'expert' on epidemiology from Harvard.
-- Can anyone tell me the last time professors and experts rom liberal elitist indoctrination camps, er...colleges...ever supported Conservatives, Conservative ideology, or a Conservative President?

"A widely followed model for projecting Covid-19 deaths in the U.S. is producing results that have been bouncing up and down like an unpredictable fever, and now epidemiologists are criticizing it as flawed and misleading for both the public and policy makers. In particular, they warn against relying on it as the basis for government decision-making, including on “re-opening America.”

Epidemiologists are now speaking out against the model advocated as the one this administration's policies should be based off of in this pandemic....

Several scientists have come out to say that 'experts' SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN THIS FAR OFF on their modeling...and more than one scientist is questioning WHY there was so much pressure applied to use it as the basis for critical policy decision:

"Others experts, including some colleagues of the model-makers, are even harsher. “That the IHME model keeps changing is evidence of its lack of reliability as a predictive tool,” said epidemiologist Ruth Etzioni of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, who has served on a search committee for IHME. “That it is being used for policy decisions and its results interpreted wrongly is a travesty unfolding before our eyes.”

The catastrophic impact on our economy due to policy decisions based on this horrifically flawed model will inevitably cause the government to make the argument that the final / actual infected and mortality rates are so far off the models due to the policy decisions made; however, this will be more 'political posturing' than a more factual assessment and confirmation that the models were inexplicably off.


There are 2 tried-and-true models that were completely ignored. Instead the model pushed was one that inspired far less confidence:

There are two tried-and-true ways to model an epidemic. The most established, dating back a century, calculates how many people are susceptible to a virus (in the case of the new coronavirus, everyone), how many become exposed, how many of those become infected, and how many recover and therefore have immunity (at least for a while).

"IHME uses neither a SEIR nor an agent-based approach. It doesn’t even try to model the transmission of disease, or the incubation period, or other features of Covid-19, as SEIR and agent-based models at Imperial College London and others do. It doesn’t try to account for how many infected people interact with how many others, how many additional cases each earlier case causes, or other facts of disease transmission that have been the foundation of epidemiology models for decades.

Instead, IHME starts with data from cities where Covid-19 struck before it hit the U.S., first Wuhan and now 19 cities in Italy and Spain."

The most obvious problem with IHME is the blind trust placed in China and the WHO when the virus was 1st reported, trust that was unwarranted. Evidence shows that China was NOT forthcoming with information about the virus in a timely manner - in fact, evidence shows China hid the outbreak. For example, evidence shows China knew about the outbreak as early as OCTOBER 2019 and not only hid news of the outbreak but also allowed the epidemic to spread globally by refusing to cancel international travel from the very epicenter of its outbreak. Furthermore, evidence shows the WHO knew about the epidemic sooner than revealed and were actually misleading the rest of the world by claiming COVID-19 was not a problem, that China was containing the outbreak, and encouraging countries NOT to close its border and impose Travel Bans. CHINA AND THE WHO MISLED THE REST OF THE WORLD FOR MONTHS, AND IN SITUATIONS LIKE THIS TIME = LIVES LOST!

Based on the fact that the IHME begins with and is based on honest, complete data shared by countries / governments / scientists - which China and the WHO STILL has not done, the model was disastrously wrong / inaccurate from the very start.

Many epidemiologists are now pointing out this is why the IHME should never have been considered and definitely should not been pushed as the model to use over the other 2 that do not rely on other governments' / bodies' transparency / willingness to share data.

After OFFICIALLY reporting their epidemic to the WHO China refused to share data, refused to allow the CDC to come in to assess and offer help, they hid / falsified their numbers, and even engaged in propaganda by attempting to claim the USN was responsible for introducing / releasing COVID-19 in China....

So how the hell did an 'expert epidemiologist' from Liberal elitist academia come to the conclusion that US policy should be based IHME that relied on non-existent cooperation, transparency, and virus data-sharing by the Chinese?

Influential Covid-19 model uses flawed methods and shouldn't guide U.S. policies, critics say

A widely followed model for projecting #coronavirus deaths in the U.S. is producing results that have been bouncing up and down like an unpredictable fever.

www.statnews.com

.

So...in yet another attempt to move the goalposts, we should have used a model that's a century old for a modern virus that we knew nothing about. Sure, makes sense..if you're looking for a distraction or diversion. Otherwise, you use the worst case scenario. That will give you an idea of what your response will need to look like. And ours sucked. So far, the toll hasn't been as high as predicted. Whelp. You can thank governors, mayors, and business leaders in this country for that. They took action when the campaigner in chief didn't. They're the reason the death toll isn't catastrophic. And I have a news flash for you. No matter what happened the virus was landing on our shores. Some sort of shutdown was inevitable. If there had been action at the top sooner, a lot of it might not have been necessary. We have never waited for another country or organization to act before we did.

 

[easyt65]

You know, the whole "armchair quarterback" thing gets old real quick. The reality is that there was no way to know what this thing was going to do.

Sorry, but the article and the true expert Epidemiologists speaking out in this article (AND MANY OTHERS) proves you are wrong. As the article teaches, there are 2 tried-and-true models who have been used for a long time that have been proven to be far more reliable than the IHME, which completely relied from the start on the CHICOMS to be honest, open, forthcoming, and sharing all of their information.

 

[shockedcanadian]

The initial model itself had to have been a shot in the dark as they had very little information, and I'm sure, plenty of unreliable information. Any data scientist will tell you, it's "garbage in, garbage out". The models are only as good as the data and due to the necessity of confronting this unknown virus, no country had the luxury of waiting to find out and get the best data. This fact alone, indicts the Communist Party in CHina for their secrecy. Arguments about the models used can happen, but it will always come down to the immediate data available at the time.

I'm not sure Canada or the U.S could have avoided some major shut down order of some kind. The important aspect at this time is not letting the MSM keep promoting this as "the new norm" and suggesting a shutdown for 18 months, It's preposterous, and even potentially wrong headed since you need some to build immunity.

Also, to make sure the slow return to normal and free market capitalism is done correctly. If those areas hardly impacted by this virus come on line properly and with vigor, it will convince other areas to do the same by replicating their approach. Sadly, it almost seems some DON'T want the world to return to normal, playing the role of fear mongerer in order to extract more control and, political gain. THAT is scary.

 

[Canon Shooter]

You know, the whole "armchair quarterback" thing gets old real quick. The reality is that there was no way to know what this thing was going to do.

Sorry, but the article and the true expert Epidemiologists speaking out in this article (AND MANY OTHERS) proves you are wrong. As the article teaches, there are 2 tried-and-true models who have been used for a long time that have been proven to be far more reliable than the IHME, which completely relied from the start on the CHICOMS to be honest, open, forthcoming, and sharing all of their information.

We'll just disagree.

The article we're looking at was written five days ago.

Where were these people three months ago?

 

[easyt65]

So far, the toll hasn't been as high as predicted. Whelp. You can thank governors, mayors, and business leaders in this country for that.

No, you can thank the use of an unreliable Harvard exert-recommended model that was completely based from the start on blind faith that the Chicoms would share critical data about the virus in a timely manner resulting in a massively flawed / miserably failed prediction that resulted in the US govt shutting down one of the most powerful economies in history due toi a virus with a mortality rate equivalent to the annual flu / influenza.

John Roberts walked into the press briefing room and told a technician to take off his mask because according to a recent California study, the mortality rate for the Coronavirus is only 0.1% to 0.3%.
-- "So It Was a Hoax?" - Fox News' John Roberts Caught on Hot Mic Discussing COVID-19 Mortality Rate with Technician, 'Like the Flu' (VIDEO)

 

[Fueri]

It's obvious at this point that the models are way, way wrong.

Garbage In, Total Economic Devastation Out.

Meanwhile, countries, such as the Netherlands, that did not jump in with both feet to clamp down every twitch of movement from their citizens, are coming out the other side already and sending their children back to school.

Meanwhile, we still haven't bought a clue here and are still trying to stop it, even as studies are showing us that the infection rate is far higher than we thought and the actual Infection Fatality Rate is far lower than we think. As more and more of that data piles up it is becoming increasingly likely that we blew the call here, big-time, and continue to do so based on crap data and the abject terror instilled in people by these early predictions.

 

[easyt65]

Where were these people three months ago?

Not being listened to, probably mocked by the same dumbasses who were mocking Trump and his travel ban, which they now agree was the right thing to do.

 

[candycorn]

You know, the whole "armchair quarterback" thing gets old real quick.

The reality is that there was no way to know what this thing was going to do. What we knew was we had a highly communicable virus that was getting out of control.

Were poor decisions made? Yes, they were. Were good decisions made? Yes, they were. And not a swignin' dick on this forum would've been able to make decisions which were any more informed than those made by the administration.

Things seem to be slowly coming back around. I know, in Florida, our beaches are open. Local businesses are looking at being able to open, maybe with some restrictions, before too much longer.

I talked to a guy who recently opened a high-end pawn shop here in town (I was selling him some silver), and I asked how he was doing. Now, because pawn shops make loans, they are technically considered to be a bank and, as such, are considered an "essential" business.

He said that, while business was slow, he was also doing business with every single person who walked through his door. No one has been coming in to browse. People come in to buy things, to pawn something or to sell something. He said not a single person has come into his store since he opened without there being some sort of business transaction. He felt that was a positive, and I'd have to agree with him.

So, yeah, undoubtedly mistakes were made. But we were dealing with something which was unprecedented and, in the face of something like that, you err on the side of caution...

The President is making all decisions based on federal policy either directly or by allowing decisions made by others to not be overruled.

On a scale of 1-10 (1 being no chance, 10 being a remote possibility) what do you rate the chance of a blob supporter saying Trump made an error in judgment. I say it’s a -9

 

[Canon Shooter]

You know, the whole "armchair quarterback" thing gets old real quick.

The reality is that there was no way to know what this thing was going to do. What we knew was we had a highly communicable virus that was getting out of control.

Were poor decisions made? Yes, they were. Were good decisions made? Yes, they were. And not a swignin' dick on this forum would've been able to make decisions which were any more informed than those made by the administration.

Things seem to be slowly coming back around. I know, in Florida, our beaches are open. Local businesses are looking at being able to open, maybe with some restrictions, before too much longer.

I talked to a guy who recently opened a high-end pawn shop here in town (I was selling him some silver), and I asked how he was doing. Now, because pawn shops make loans, they are technically considered to be a bank and, as such, are considered an "essential" business.

He said that, while business was slow, he was also doing business with every single person who walked through his door. No one has been coming in to browse. People come in to buy things, to pawn something or to sell something. He said not a single person has come into his store since he opened without there being some sort of business transaction. He felt that was a positive, and I'd have to agree with him.

So, yeah, undoubtedly mistakes were made. But we were dealing with something which was unprecedented and, in the face of something like that, you err on the side of caution...

The President is making all decisions based on federal policy either directly or by allowing decisions made by others to not be overruled.

On a scale of 1-10 (1 being no chance, 10 being a remote possibility) what do you rate the chance of a blob supporter saying Trump made an error in judgment. I say it’s a -9

That doesn't even make sense.

You can go...

 

[candycorn]

You know, the whole "armchair quarterback" thing gets old real quick.

The reality is that there was no way to know what this thing was going to do. What we knew was we had a highly communicable virus that was getting out of control.

Were poor decisions made? Yes, they were. Were good decisions made? Yes, they were. And not a swignin' dick on this forum would've been able to make decisions which were any more informed than those made by the administration.

Things seem to be slowly coming back around. I know, in Florida, our beaches are open. Local businesses are looking at being able to open, maybe with some restrictions, before too much longer.

I talked to a guy who recently opened a high-end pawn shop here in town (I was selling him some silver), and I asked how he was doing. Now, because pawn shops make loans, they are technically considered to be a bank and, as such, are considered an "essential" business.

He said that, while business was slow, he was also doing business with every single person who walked through his door. No one has been coming in to browse. People come in to buy things, to pawn something or to sell something. He said not a single person has come into his store since he opened without there being some sort of business transaction. He felt that was a positive, and I'd have to agree with him.

So, yeah, undoubtedly mistakes were made. But we were dealing with something which was unprecedented and, in the face of something like that, you err on the side of caution...

The President is making all decisions based on federal policy either directly or by allowing decisions made by others to not be overruled.

On a scale of 1-10 (1 being no chance, 10 being a remote possibility) what do you rate the chance of a blob supporter saying Trump made an error in judgment. I say it’s a -9

That doesn't even make sense.

You can go...

Well for it to make sense, you have to understand multi syllable words.

 

[dudmuck]

The United States government shut down one of the strongest economies this nation has ever seen as it was still roaring, and the catastrophic decision to do so was based on projections by liberal academia experts who used obviously a flawed model / flawed models...

Numerous articles that have been written the last few weeks have begun to question HOW COULD 'EXPERTS' COULD HAVE CREATED A COVID-19 MODEL ADOPTED AND USED TO BASE SUCH MONUMENTAL POLICY UPON BE / HAVE BEEN SO EXTREMELY FAR OFF / FLAWED?


“It’s not a model that most of us in the infectious disease epidemiology field think is well suited” to projecting Covid-19 deaths, epidemiologist Marc Lipsitch of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health told reporters this week, referring to projections by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington."

So the US Government, specifically the Trump administration, was pressured to accept this model and to base the decision to shut down the country - and the roaring economy - on this model advocated by such experts as this member of elitist Liberal academia, an 'expert' on epidemiology from Harvard.
-- Can anyone tell me the last time professors and experts rom liberal elitist indoctrination camps, er...colleges...ever supported Conservatives, Conservative ideology, or a Conservative President?

"A widely followed model for projecting Covid-19 deaths in the U.S. is producing results that have been bouncing up and down like an unpredictable fever, and now epidemiologists are criticizing it as flawed and misleading for both the public and policy makers. In particular, they warn against relying on it as the basis for government decision-making, including on “re-opening America.”

Epidemiologists are now speaking out against the model advocated as the one this administration's policies should be based off of in this pandemic....

Several scientists have come out to say that 'experts' SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN THIS FAR OFF on their modeling...and more than one scientist is questioning WHY there was so much pressure applied to use it as the basis for critical policy decision:

"Others experts, including some colleagues of the model-makers, are even harsher. “That the IHME model keeps changing is evidence of its lack of reliability as a predictive tool,” said epidemiologist Ruth Etzioni of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, who has served on a search committee for IHME. “That it is being used for policy decisions and its results interpreted wrongly is a travesty unfolding before our eyes.”

The catastrophic impact on our economy due to policy decisions based on this horrifically flawed model will inevitably cause the government to make the argument that the final / actual infected and mortality rates are so far off the models due to the policy decisions made; however, this will be more 'political posturing' than a more factual assessment and confirmation that the models were inexplicably off.


There are 2 tried-and-true models that were completely ignored. Instead the model pushed was one that inspired far less confidence:

There are two tried-and-true ways to model an epidemic. The most established, dating back a century, calculates how many people are susceptible to a virus (in the case of the new coronavirus, everyone), how many become exposed, how many of those become infected, and how many recover and therefore have immunity (at least for a while).

"IHME uses neither a SEIR nor an agent-based approach. It doesn’t even try to model the transmission of disease, or the incubation period, or other features of Covid-19, as SEIR and agent-based models at Imperial College London and others do. It doesn’t try to account for how many infected people interact with how many others, how many additional cases each earlier case causes, or other facts of disease transmission that have been the foundation of epidemiology models for decades.

Instead, IHME starts with data from cities where Covid-19 struck before it hit the U.S., first Wuhan and now 19 cities in Italy and Spain."

The most obvious problem with IHME is the blind trust placed in China and the WHO when the virus was 1st reported, trust that was unwarranted. Evidence shows that China was NOT forthcoming with information about the virus in a timely manner - in fact, evidence shows China hid the outbreak. For example, evidence shows China knew about the outbreak as early as OCTOBER 2019 and not only hid news of the outbreak but also allowed the epidemic to spread globally by refusing to cancel international travel from the very epicenter of its outbreak. Furthermore, evidence shows the WHO knew about the epidemic sooner than revealed and were actually misleading the rest of the world by claiming COVID-19 was not a problem, that China was containing the outbreak, and encouraging countries NOT to close its border and impose Travel Bans. CHINA AND THE WHO MISLED THE REST OF THE WORLD FOR MONTHS, AND IN SITUATIONS LIKE THIS TIME = LIVES LOST!

Based on the fact that the IHME begins with and is based on honest, complete data shared by countries / governments / scientists - which China and the WHO STILL has not done, the model was disastrously wrong / inaccurate from the very start.

Many epidemiologists are now pointing out this is why the IHME should never have been considered and definitely should not been pushed as the model to use over the other 2 that do not rely on other governments' / bodies' transparency / willingness to share data.

After OFFICIALLY reporting their epidemic to the WHO China refused to share data, refused to allow the CDC to come in to assess and offer help, they hid / falsified their numbers, and even engaged in propaganda by attempting to claim the USN was responsible for introducing / releasing COVID-19 in China....

So how the hell did an 'expert epidemiologist' from Liberal elitist academia come to the conclusion that US policy should be based IHME that relied on non-existent cooperation, transparency, and virus data-sharing by the Chinese?

Influential Covid-19 model uses flawed methods and shouldn't guide U.S. policies, critics say

A widely followed model for projecting #coronavirus deaths in the U.S. is producing results that have been bouncing up and down like an unpredictable fever.

www.statnews.com

.

Models evolve as new data comes in.
The initial models were done without social distancing in place.
As mitigation takes effect, the models need to be updated with new data.
One example is that the 1st coronavirus death occurred in early February.
Also, people who watch Hannity are more likely to die, so darwin was right: natural selection.
Thanks alot for encouraging a 2nd great depression.

 

[Canon Shooter]

You know, the whole "armchair quarterback" thing gets old real quick.

The reality is that there was no way to know what this thing was going to do. What we knew was we had a highly communicable virus that was getting out of control.

Were poor decisions made? Yes, they were. Were good decisions made? Yes, they were. And not a swignin' dick on this forum would've been able to make decisions which were any more informed than those made by the administration.

Things seem to be slowly coming back around. I know, in Florida, our beaches are open. Local businesses are looking at being able to open, maybe with some restrictions, before too much longer.

I talked to a guy who recently opened a high-end pawn shop here in town (I was selling him some silver), and I asked how he was doing. Now, because pawn shops make loans, they are technically considered to be a bank and, as such, are considered an "essential" business.

He said that, while business was slow, he was also doing business with every single person who walked through his door. No one has been coming in to browse. People come in to buy things, to pawn something or to sell something. He said not a single person has come into his store since he opened without there being some sort of business transaction. He felt that was a positive, and I'd have to agree with him.

So, yeah, undoubtedly mistakes were made. But we were dealing with something which was unprecedented and, in the face of something like that, you err on the side of caution...

The President is making all decisions based on federal policy either directly or by allowing decisions made by others to not be overruled.

On a scale of 1-10 (1 being no chance, 10 being a remote possibility) what do you rate the chance of a blob supporter saying Trump made an error in judgment. I say it’s a -9

That doesn't even make sense.

You can go...

Well for it to make sense, you have to understand multi syllable words.

Or for the person posting it to not have a bag of human shit for a brain.

I don't know what you mean by "blob supporter". Explain...

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

So far, the toll hasn't been as high as predicted. Whelp. You can thank governors, mayors, and business leaders in this country for that.

No, you can thank the use of an unreliable Harvard exert-recommended model that was completely based from the start on blind faith that the Chicoms would share critical data about the virus in a timely manner resulting in a massively flawed / miserably failed prediction that resulted in the US govt shutting down one of the most powerful economies in history due toi a virus with a mortality rate equivalent to the annual flu / influenza.

John Roberts walked into the press briefing room and told a technician to take off his mask because according to a recent California study, the mortality rate for the Coronavirus is only 0.1% to 0.3%.
-- "So It Was a Hoax?" - Fox News' John Roberts Caught on Hot Mic Discussing COVID-19 Mortality Rate with Technician, 'Like the Flu' (VIDEO)

Again, this is not the flu. It's more contagious with a much higher mortality rate than the flu. So you spread the virus around and make a lot of people sick. Let's assume none of them die or need hospitalization. You still have millions of people unable to work, shop, or even get out of bed for at least two weeks and then another two weeks of containment before they are cleared to go back out. What have you got? Almost exactly where we are now. So, you still think not taking action in January wouldn't have mattered?

 

[easyt65]

Sadly, it almost seems some DON'T want the world to return to normal, playing the role of fear mongerer in order to extract more control and, political gain. THAT is scary.

4+ years of doing anything to take this president down (to include proven violations of the Constitution and Rule of law as well as voting to Impeach based on zero crime, zero evidence, zero witnesses and admitting it was a political Impeachment - the 1st ever in US history) , I have believed for a while now that the Democrats would literally do ANYTHING to remove Trump from office or ensure he does not win re-election....to include burning the economy and the country down.

The economy has been ground to a halt
The most Americans working at 1 time ever in US history has been reduced to record unemployment
The lowest unemployment rate in decades, in some cases ever, have been reversed to some of the highest ever
Record stock market numbers have been reduced to near-depression era numbers
Record numbers of Americans liberated from Dem economic polices of 'economic slavery' have been forced back to them
Reduced government size and power have exploded with Constitutional Rights violating / restricting edicts imposed

Everything the President had going for him for re-election, that Dems could not overcome, have been wiped out....

....due to policies based on a failed model that relied on Chicom input / honesty.

It is almost, as well, that this 'burn-it-to-the-ground' assault based on fear-mongering over a virus that has proven to have the mortality rate of the annual flu / Influenza was not just an attack on Trump but an attack on everyone who voted for Trump in 2016. Its almost like the Left has gone out of its way again to punish Americans who rebelled against the Washington Establishment, to remind them the PEOPLE don't control politics / this country, the Washington Establishment (Far Left) does.....Its almost as they have literally burnt the entire nation down - based on a flawed, unreliable model.

 

[Camp]

Tea bagger xrumpoholics know over 42,000 deaths from COVID-19 are no big deal. More people died in WWII or the Civil War than COVID-19, so far. Percentage-wise, COVID-19 is safer than some other stuff. Successful suicide attempts for example. A higher percentage of people die from successful suicide attempts than COVID-19.

 

[easyt65]

Again, this is not the flu. It's more contagious with a much higher mortality rate than the flu.

False. The mortality rate of this virus is almost the exact same as the seasonal flu / influenza:

"According to a recent California study, the mortality rate for the Coronavirus is only 0.1% to 0.3%."
--"He (John Roberts) he asked Dr. Birx about this California study during the press briefing and she dodged his questions."


Birx has been asked several times about the actual mortality rate of COVID-19, and she has dodged the question every time. Numerous people every day in the media and in local / state governments have repeatedly declared the need for more testing is needed before opening up their governments / states because it is believed MANY MORE AMERCIANS HAVE THE DIESEASE BUT ARE ASYMPTOMATIC BUT WILL NOT BE CONFIRMED UNTIL MPORE TESTING IS DONE.....and if many more people ARE infected than reported - as suggested by the California study - then the mortality rate is far less - between 0.1% and .03% to be closer to exact.