Raheem KassamVerified account

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.

Well no, that’s not how it works either. As we know more models are adjusted. Why would we NOT do that, lol? Also, we barely knew what the general impact of mitigation would be. Again, models had to assume the worst. Now we know the impact is far BETTER. Don’t be this guy.

You’ve just invented an argument (again). Your side keeps doing this. You all need to calm down. Nowhere did I say I believed the models. I’m simply explaining why they say what they say. For some reason you people have kittens about an explanation.

If you didn’t have worst case scenarios you wouldn’t have full mitigation. If you didn’t have full mitigation (or near) you’d have a lot more deaths. Look at the UK’s per capita deaths. That’s the result of a “herd immunity” delayed policy response.