None of the mathematical predictions were correct. They all were alarmist.

The ones you are referencing are the "if we do nothing" predictions.

Something that changes so quickly and relies on political will which also relies on the study itself, can't really make great predictions of the future, only study the dynamics. And the dynamics of viral spread are pretty easy to understand.

i mean, he's still not completely wrong.

the % of people who would die if contracting it were still too high, and in many places like in my area we're still doing almost nothing. no one wears masks, bars open, restaurants open for sit down, schools open, etc. and still numbers are no where near alarmist levels.

it's similar to the Al Gore doc on climate change, alarmist numbers used to try and get drastic action. but the overshoot causes people to say "well its all fake then" and do nothing. both real problems, both good to get ahead of, but both oversold. no one wants to buy a quality product at 125% price.

Which is why we should listen to scientists, not Al Gore. The observed effects of global warming have actually been in the "worst case" predictions of peer reviewed publications, which is significant since we've made more moves towards green tech than the worst case prediction assumed, and that means we actually underestimated the effect. Climate science models were bad, but they were bad because they drastically under-estimated the effect.

Where you are is fine without masks because of the action by the rest of the country. You aren't isolated. Models are for studying dynamics, not necessarily making specific single predictions. In the case of something like Covid there is no way to go out and say "This is exactly where we will be in 6 months", instead you get papers where they say "If we take these steps we'll be here, if we take these steps we'll be here, if you take these steps we'll be here". It's all conditional, so it doesn't make sense to say "They got the predictions wrong!" when you are only referencing the worst case predictions that assumed nothing would be done.

Al Gore referenced studies in his doc. he didnt just invent stats, its not the internet.

the studies you're referencing only got funded largely because of how impactful his doc was, its just in hindsight he looks like a fool claiming antarctica wouldnt exist in 20 years and houses on coaslines would wash away.

the early estimates of 1 million plus dead by election day were always overblown. i said as much at the time, the numbers just didnt have face validity. i was told "well dynamic systems aren't that simple", which is true for calculation, but not face validity. and i know i know, 200k+ still dead, i get that, but a factor of 4 isn't a small thing.

Having references =/= made claims that are defensible based on the references.

The early estimates of 1 million plus dead by election day was, and say it with me, the result if absolutely nothing was done. If absolutely nothing was done we would have 100% infection rate today, easily, and a million dead would, even by the revised estimates, be conservative.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Sep 3 2020 12:06pm

that's nonsensical. "absolutely nothing was done" was a unicorn all along. as if people would stand idly by as the entire country gets a terrible infection and not wash hands more, not socially distance, not close indoor dining, not wear masks, etc.

it's like saying "if we stop controlling the nuclear plant it will melt down and be a disaster", as if people will just walk off the job, not be replaced, and a tragedy will just be allowed to happen.

all of the action i list above wouldnt have even required govt intervention if the disease did spread that rapidly, people would just do it to stop the spread. that's not an indictment of govt mandates and laws, it's an indictment of scary language used to fear monger people into action. it was illogical and unrealistic, even if statistically correct in a detached from reality "context".

You're firmly in ofthevoid territory now

An estimate the purpose of which is to determine the damage in a worst case scenario is not fear-mongering, it's necessary as a first step to understand what action to take. Any disease, no matter how significant or insignificant it turns out to be, will get a worst-case estimate as a matter of course.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Sep 3 2020 12:13pm

it is fear mongering when the worst cast scenario is reported as likely, or even possible, rather than impossible in reality. news agencies ran with snappy headlines to fan flames for clicks among a rapidly panicking populace. those numbers were always wrong in the real world, not slightly inflated, wrong by a notable factor.

Can you point me to where this was reported as likely? I don't remember seeing that. I actually explicitly remember ofthevoid making this exact criticism and getting smacked down by the entire forum as we all pointed out only an idiot would take "no country in the whole world reacts at all" as a likely scenario.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Sep 3 2020 12:16pm