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.
-
-
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.
-
Replying to @JoeySalads @laura_nelson
That only works if you have enough tests by the time you’re modelling. That didn’t and couldn’t have happened.
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
Your argument is terrible. Governing at the extremes causes loss of life. Presuming the early model extremes are actionably necessary is dangerous. I pray your mindset never gains power.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
My mindset is already in power.
-
Show additional replies, including those that may contain offensive content
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.