You realise models like this are usually just worst scenario guidance, right? It could be 84%, or 79%. But in a situation where little is known, models will exercise caution in order to preserve human life. Which is more than I can say for a lot of “conservatives”, lately.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
As I explained on the radio show today, that’s because the models were based on data with death rates from a handful of countries and at the time they didn’t know to build in variables with Italy, for instance, regarding smoking. We still don’t know all aggravating factors.
Your gripe appears to be that science isn’t precise and can’t see the future. But that’s exactly the type of pseudo science we conservatives usually loathe when it comes to climate change etc. Why be upset that there’s now a range? Be mad at politicians, not models!
