I've been screaming this in virtually every post since joining this forum.
The models originally said 2.5 million US deaths. Then 250,0000. Then 100-200 thousand. Now 60 thousand. Will not even be that many and that is w/ every death denying comorbidities. I guess if you want to make lemonade out of lemons you could say CV has cured Pneumonia????
Every state is building emergency hospitals. Louisiana has spent $50,000,000 or more on hospital space when their own website shows available capacity in hospitals. I'm not complaining that Louisiana or any other state was or is irresponsible. Its exactly the opposite.
NY, CALF, LA and other states are reacting to the data provided.
Anyone who looked at these models should have known from day 1 that they were flawed. At the very least the models should have accounted for seasonality and for replenishment of hospital rooms and ventilatiors. i.e. A room or vent's use is not permanent. So after use it replenishes inventory.
Further the Diamond Princess Cruise ship was and still is the only non corrupted scientific data source there is. It is your control group.
Funny how hydroxycholorquine cannot be recognized by the Fauci crowd since it has not been the subject of a double blind scientific study w/ a control group, but the same doctors can state unequivocally that social distancing works.
Wake up America. There are forces at work here, but its those concerned w/ your safety.
Nobody pushing this scam is concerned with our "safety" but rather with our "control."
THIS!!!!!
I too have been scoffing at the model claims from day one. Anyone who understands data analysis could readily see how flawed the model assumptions were. They assigned an outrageously high initial R0 value based on a combination of specious claims out of China and the simple fact that it was a novel virus, but this value was grossly misrepresented in the media by use of the phrase "more contagious".
R0 is not a constant property of the virus. R0 is a dependent variable set by environmental and social factors as well as the number of people already exposed. As the pandemic progresses R0 MUST go down accordingly. Also, places like NYC with high population density, and heavy reliance on public transport would have MUCH higher R0 than smaller and more private transport reliant cities and towns.
The real world doesn't work like video games, but the computer models are actually LESS sophisticated than a typical AAA X-Box title.
We need to open source data, this cannot happen again
https://thedonald.win/p/FMOHgbWZ/government-needs-to-open-source-/
I think we can safely say, "Governance by Modeling" is a complete and total failure for diseases.
Who believes, "Climate by Modeling" is any better.
Hopefully no one!
They haven’t released updated model projections in two days. Hmm!
Liberals: - "Our models predict for a fact two million coronavirus-related deaths in the US... Woops! We were wrong, but you have to understand that there are too many variables for the model to be perfect after sixty whole days... but climate change is real, our models predict for a fact how the world's climate will be in 150 years if we don't do something about it... and if you disagree you're a science denier"
Fact Check - 100000% true
Again, open your diary, write a letter to Trump and let him know you ‘cracked the code’.
I’m sure he’s waiting for someone like you to simply make him aware that he is doing the wrong thing. “Wake” him up.
You seem to misunderstand.
TRUMP is our only hope. I firmly believe that!
And I do believe he is getting this exact feedback from some. e.g. Rush, Laura Ingraham, Peter Navarro, Mark Meadows, Larry Kudlow, Steve Mnuchin. But he has to manage the narrative that has largely been captured by the deep state docs.
Also, I have emailed, Rand Paul, and a couple of other senators a few times.
But if you know someone that would be receptive to more detailed comment than can be posted here please let me know!
He is using actual numbers of deaths to make his decisions on reopening the country. Once the sharp drop occurs, some areas will return. The early models have no real role anymore.
Trump is using “common sense” to make the right moves. He doesn’t need anyone to hold his hand.
There will not be a sharp drop when comorbidities are disregarded.
Both Louisiana and New York produce decent stats that are publicly available.
https://covid19tracker.health.ny.gov/views/NYS-COVID19-Tracker/NYSDOHCOVID-19Tracker-Fatalities?%3Aembed=yes&%3Atoolbar=no&%3Atabs=n
80% of NY deaths have comorbidities. These same comorbidities are present w/ common flu and other diseases. But in the classification side if some dies who was a diabetes patient they are given a flu test to bump up the flu stats. That is another element of data corruption.
Also, there is a growing body of evidence that CV was here much longer than originally assumed. There is some emerging evidence that this why the west coast looks pretty good. But it also means that CV was intermingled w/ other disease diagnosis prior to rampant CV testing. So, are the CV numbers additive to the total of intermingled diseases or have we simply distinguished CV from the total interminged disease numbers?
There are so many data angles that have been wrongly interpreted. Again, the Diamond Princess Cruise Ship is an uncorrupted self contained Data Set. It is the best indicator that has come along. And its data does not come close to justifying these reactions.
BTW, the FEDS have only recommended Social Distancing, hand washing, etc. Its the States that I have a problem with.
Sorry, but this is a distortion that has been repeated many times. You are comparing a model (2.5 million) which assumed no mitigation efforts, with other models that did assume mitigation efforts. It's completely dishonest to imply that the model was that far off.
Yes, the models have been very unreliable, but you, and others, completely distorting the numbers doesn't make it any better.
The IHME (gates foundation) model did assume mitigation. That's where the 250 and down came from.
I know, that's the point I just made. Comparing models that showed 2 Million deaths which assumed no mitigation, with models that did assume mitigation and showed far fewer deaths is not a valid comparison.
You can't use that to pretend to models were off by an order of magnitude.
There's no such thing as "no mitigation." They could pump any old garbage numbers in there and say "this is what would happen if we did nothing." Why not 6 million? Why not 12 million? It's all pulled out of the air.
Exactly. It was pulled out of the air by groups that are known to have an open borders, globalist, anti-Trump agenda.
It's not pulled out of thin air, it's based on assumptions and math.
However, I do agree that 'no mitigation' is not a valid scenario, so the models that used no mitigation assumptions where completely useless and never should have been considered. Even if there was no organized mitigation suggested or enforced by the government, there would have been organic mitigation efforts implemented by the people.
What assumptions? That's the big question, isn't it? GIGO.
Agree with your second paragraph.
Are you claiming that models are not based on assumptions and math? You should read up on the subject.
But when each and every model was a component of decision making then yes you can group them together.
The point is were the models wrong out of innocence or wrong out of angenda purposes. I think we know its latter.
But you make resonable arguments. I mean that in complimentary way!