“He revised his models to reflect social distancing.
And under scathing rebuke from the Oxford team that essentially called his initial projections trash.”
Right, but you have all these stories out yesterday and today saying that the danger has been way over stated, they Oxford Study has caste a great shade on it.
Then you have stories that the Imperial College is back tracking, they have greatly revised their numbers and the UK has plenty of healthcare resources for this.
Dr. Birx comes out today and says UK has revised, it’s not 500,000, it’s 20,000, we need antibody test to explain the data we are seeing, there are either lots of asymptotic carriers (Oxford Study) or it’s simply not as transmissible as we had thought.
Then I find that Dr. Fergeson of Imperial College said that they had not revised, in fact it is probably more transmissible.
How does all of that get so confused by people who are the experts on this?
“we need antibody test to explain the data we are seeing,”
Correct.
Because if half of everyone have already been exposed, all our efforts at social distancing are a waste.
IF half have already contracted the virus, open everything up and let ‘er rip.
But we must know FOR SURE.
“there are either lots of asymptotic carriers”
asymptomatic
I do that too. I find myself correcting it on review. I have a CS and math background, so asymptotic is a word, just not the right one.
You might even have caught that from me on some earlier post I didn’t adequately proof. Sorry.