He writes the answer to his own question:
In mid-March, without social distancing, they predicted 2.2 million American deaths. By early April they reduced their death projection to 100,000 to 240,000 assuming social distancing measures in place. Their April 17 update now projects 60,308 deaths, 3% of their original prediction. What changed? Social distancing was in already in place when the death predictions dropped by a factor of four.
The continual drumbeat against social distancing is all based on circular reasoning, begging the question, ignoring the facts before the advocate.
That the model numbers changed between no social distancing and social distancing is not an argument against social distancing, but an argument in favor of it. What happened with social distancing in place is not evidence of how fine things would have been without social distancing.
That social distancing was more effective than was presumed in the model is not an argument against modeling, but an argument that individuals trying to protect themselves did a far better job of social distancing than those running the models presumed [the genius of Americans is being able to do voluntarily what is in their own self-interest and not have to be told in a fascist manner which foot to march out on first when doing the goose step].
Of course we could do what this idiot advocates. Just stop modeling and using models. Let's stop forecasting hurricanes. After all they never get it really just right spot on. Of course a lot of us would like to know whether we have a .001% chance of being directly striken and a 30% chance, which hurricane models are pretty darn good at, actually. Do I go about my business or do I board up my windows and skip town. While there are no 100% right answers, there are 100% wrong answers.
>>That social distancing was more effective than was presumed in the model is not an argument against modeling
they ere entirely against Trump’s travel restrictions and the WHO still opposes them
Well, Andy,
Your suggestion regarding weather forecasting etc is silly and not even related. Meteorology has a really good record at predicting the “epidemic” and a really strong record of predicting when and where and even how long. These covid19 models had no supporting data, and evidence is rising that the virus had been running around the US probably before October, with infection rates and illness being absorbed into presumptive flu cases.... Antibodies present in exponential numbers compared to what the modelers estimate ( Stanford, Iceland, Boston etc).
We all get it- the models had lots of knowledge, information and assessment gaps, but the argument that they were the useful for policy making is weak. Trump had options I suppose, why he chose these deep state persons ( Fauci-progressivist ad nauseum) as advisors many of us are wondering.... I think he’ll will have to answer this question sooner than later.
Anyway,
When models, even updated models, show a correction of minus 97%, it strongly suggests the early models and policy derived thereof was not only absurdly wrong, but maybe even malicious and negligent. Of course, the good scientists/modelers at the think tank get paid, but the buck stops with the decision maker- Mr. Trump; just a nice gift for the left in time for the summer debates ( not that Joe is gonna even know his name by then).
never let a crisis go to waste.
“That the model numbers changed between no social distancing and social distancing is not an argument against social distancing, but an argument in favor of it. What happened with social distancing in place is not evidence of how fine things would have been without social distancing.”
Absolute bullshit. The 2.2 million deaths were without social distancing, 240,000 were with those measures in place. The numbers have been constantly revised down since then. The models were crap, and allowed politicians to go nuts and implement ridiculous policies that added nothing to public health but are crushing the economy. Reasonable measures could have limited exposure to those most at risk and slowed the inevitable spread of the disease. Instead, we’ve “cured” the patient by killing him.
‘Of course we could do what this idiot advocates. Just stop modeling and using models.’
except that the ‘idiot’ never advocated any such thing...
‘Let’s stop forecasting hurricanes.’
he never advocated that either...he asked the completely valid question ‘what if the models are wrong’; and while we’re on the subject of hurricanes, a wrong model takes on immense significance when it predicts the movement of the storm to the north and it instead stalls right over your area and floods you out...
Alright, Covidiot. Clearly you are a ‘social distancing cheerleader.’
Riddle me this:
What happens when “social distancing” (an oxymoron) ends?
You’re going to be banging the drum for a longer lockdown?
Kool-Aid is more dangerous than China Flu.
Your line of reasoning is that if the model was wrong it was that it failed to adequately account for the impact of social distancing. Of course, you seem to dismiss the idea that the model was wrong from the get go. But that’s also a possibility. Either way, the model was wrong, the results it predicted have not materialized anywhere.
"individuals trying to protect themselves did a far better job of social distancing than those running the models presumed>
I see absolutely no logical basis for that assumption. Just for starters, "those running the models" have repeatedly told us that we are not being sufficiently diligent in terms of social distancing. They are constantly reprimanding the public for doing too much shopping, congregating where they shouldn't, etc.. If anything, we have been doing much less social distancing than they recommended. And that is according to them.
That leaves one other logical explanation for why the deaths have been so far under their predictions -- this diseases has a much lower mortality rate than they assumed. That is likely due to the huge numbers of asymptomatic people that are not included in the models when computing the death rate. It may also include people who are so resistant to the virus for other reasons that they simply never get it at all at measureable levels. Or perhaps it is that it requires prolonged, close exposure to acquire it in the first place.
This is supported by what has happened in places like Sweden, which have managed to plateau while still maintaining normal work and social lives. It may well be that modified herd immunity -- and "social distancing light" is the best approach to this that balances mortality with other economic and social considerations.