Raheem KassamVerified account

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.

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.