Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Well for it to make sense, you have to understand multi syllable words.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...
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...
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.
You made that so simple, I bet a blob supporter could even understand it. Not that it will change their outlook at all. LolModels evolve as new data comes in.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
.
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.
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.
READ the article.Models evolve as new data comes in.
So, now we're back to blame Democrats burning the economy down just get rid of Trump? Seems counterproductive. Trump's chances of re-election even with a good economy and no pandemic were still 50/50.
So now you've chased Dr Fauci out of the room. Now you want to chase someone who's actually been pretty deferential to Trump out too? Do that and it's all over for your savior.
The methodological flaws in that study are mountainous. The study is based on serologic tests false positive that are greater than the true positive rate.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.
So now you've chased Dr Fauci out of the room. Now you want to chase someone who's actually been pretty deferential to Trump out too? Do that and it's all over for your savior.
Bwuhahahaha....again, put your manipulated emotion and hatred for the President back in your pocket, read the article, read the links. It has nothing to do with ME, snowflake. After reading - REALLY reading and not blowing it off because you hate Trump and refuse any real facts / scientific evidence, and if you don't like what the expert Epidemiologists are saying, especially how the model chosen was the most inaccurate and unreliable and should never have been used to base economic policy on, then that's your prerogative. Go for it.
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.
.
Your source is an obscure right wing website.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.
.
So in the end all you have is a bunch of Trump bluster and whining about how a 100 year old virus model wasn't followed.
Look at the Global Warming BS models the left uses to justify killing our economy... they are just as inaccurate... But fools are easily led...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?
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.
.
Correct:that the IHME was horse shit the moment they began using data supplied by China
There is a bigger issue here, Capt. People no longer trust the media. Leftists believe Fake News CNN and MSDNC and those on the right believe Fox News and the Blaze. You go back and forth with those channels and you would think you're living in two different realities. It is fine when it is just political banter but now it matters and we don't know who to trust or believe.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.
.
Look at the Global Warming BS models the left uses to justify killing our economy... they are just as inaccurate... But fools are easily led...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?
We needed to shut down as we had no immunites to this virus. Had we done the Obama/Biden route millions would be dead and our nation would be destroyed. The initial response was correct. Now that we have avoided the burn cycle peak its time to open up slowly and manage infection rates so in a couple of months were at full capacity. once we reach 50% populace that has antibodies this will act just like other viruses.
There will be death. There is no way around this until we have a vaccine. We can limit them to a point but we will be unable to stop all of them. But the number of these deaths will be far less than the number of suicides from depression, home, family and job losses.
