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.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @JoeySalads @laura_nelson
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.
5 replies 3 retweets 11 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @JoeySalads @laura_nelson
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.
3 replies 1 retweet 13 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @JoeySalads @laura_nelson
Again, I’m not sure what you wanted estimates based off if not the confirmed rates, given that the world is dealing with a new virus and predominantly dodgy data from China.
2 replies 1 retweet 5 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @JoeySalads @laura_nelson
How does one identify mild or asymptomatic infections, either geographically, or in the wider sense of being able to both react to and integrate such a phenomenon with no previous data as a guide star?
1 reply 1 retweet 5 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
You estimate based on other known viruses, R0 etc, and remodel as you gain more data.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.