Coronavirus Modeling Had Faulty Assumptions, the Real Data Gives Us Hope

PJ Media ^ | 03/28/2020 | Rich Fernandez

[SeekAndFind]

My dear old statistics teacher used to say that relying on any model, however good but founded on past data, was like driving by looking at the rearview mirror; fine as long as the future looked like the past. As governments struggle with their response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the $64 trillion question is "which past does the future look like?"

Science writes how models have become supremely important:

Entire cities and countries have been locked down based on hastily done forecasts that often haven't been peer reviewed.  ... The Netherlands ... Prime Minister Mark Rutte rejected “working endlessly to contain the virus” and “shutting down the country completely.” Instead, he opted for “controlled spread” of the virus while making sure the health system isn't swamped with COVID-19 patients.

Other governments have chosen different models and in place of "controlled spread," bet on total lockdown.

Just how influential those models are became apparent over the past 2 weeks in the United Kingdom. ... a group at Imperial College London [recommended an approach] not unlike the strategy the Netherlands is pursuing. ... But on 16 March, the Imperial College group published a dramatically revised model that concluded—based on fresh data from the United Kingdom and Italy—that even a reduced peak would fill twice as many intensive care beds as estimated previously, overwhelming capacity. The only choice, they concluded, was to go all out on control measures.

But as new data becomes available the "fog of war" is slowly lifting and rekindling the debate between the models.

[icclearly]

“You obviously have no scientific training.....”

My friend, I don’t need scientific training to understand that if you scaled everything to the population the chart you posted would convey a totally different picture.

I can understand people like gas_dr and his projections based on logic and common sense, which has served me well over many years.

His model may be off by a few days, but he posted the first time on 3/17, almost two weeks ago, when the number of cases was at 6,000. As I pointed out in my comment #32 in this thread, his model appears to be relatively accurate, but off by a few days. Based on my post (and your subsequent FR post http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3829723/posts) we certainly seem to be moving in the right direction now.

This “feardimic” may be over sooner rather than later.