Billy_Bob
Diamond Member
THE WHO and CHINA were both saying that the virus was not human to human communicable. We didnt even have ONE fucking case in the US until the 21st of January. Your telling me that we should have tanked our economy for a ghost?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 shutdown was caused by the asswipePINO's failure to act on January 10th. I have four bipartican MOC's that prove my case.
