Raheem KassamVerified account

4/ That article, screengrabbed above, is from modelling presented March 16th. Which means it was worked on and established over 10 days ago. These "muh economy" types are not paying attention to the detail, or have flawed motives or faulty comprehension. In some cases all three

5/ But now we are supposedly in much better shape because of the social distancing actions taken (which, let's also remind ourselves, countries that didn't do it fast enough now wish they did) – the market extremists are coming out asking us to prove we saved lives. WTH?

6/ I.e. "Prove that people who were gonna get sick didn't get sick!" That's a nonsense way of framing this. Instead, look to the places already struggling, in the U.S. and abroad, and tell us with confidence that would have happened if we hadn't distanced earlier. You can't.

8/ Yes, you read that correctly. So-called "pro life" conservatives stating we are "overvaluing" the lives of older people. Because fuck grandma, right? When you can have artisanal sourdough instead.

10/ It's very clearly *in* the Imperial report from the 16th March, too. There's no "back track" or "revision". The fact is we have not gone down the "Do Nothing" route. Read for yourself, Page 13: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf …

Wrong, Raheem. He completely walked back his mortality rate & contagion spread expectation, as the main basis for his incredible reversal. He didn't drop his death estimates by a 25x ratio based on social distancing, when his own prior estimates had far more dying w/ distancing.