this is not true
neil_ferguson
@neil_ferguson
1/4 - I think it would be helpful if I cleared up some confusion that has emerged in recent days. Some have interpreted my evidence to a UK parliamentary committee as indicating we have substantially revised our assessments of the potential mortality impact of COVID-19.
4:52 PM · Mar 26, 2020·Twitter for iPhone
4K
Retweets
7.9K
Likes
neil_ferguson
@neil_ferguson
·
14h
Replying to
@neil_ferguson
2/4 -This is not the case. Indeed, if anything, our latest estimates suggest that the virus is slightly more transmissible than we previously thought. Our lethality estimates remain unchanged.
neil_ferguson
@neil_ferguson
·
14h
3/4 - My evidence to Parliament referred to the deaths we assess might occur in the UK in the presence of the very intensive social distancing and other public health interventions now in place.
neil_ferguson
@neil_ferguson
·
14h
4/4 - Without those controls, our assessment remains that the UK would see the scale of deaths reported in our study (namely, up to approximately 500 thousand).
“My evidence to Parliament referred to the deaths we assess might occur in the UK in the presence of the very intensive social distancing and other public health interventions now in place.”
So what is the “not true”?
They have put those in place. Thus the “NOW”.
As predicted he’s using the act of social distancing as cover for his ridiculous hysterical 500.000 death predictions. He’s a subhuman propagandist whose fearmingering contributed to 3.2 million jobless claims in the US this past week.