Influential Covid-19 Models Were Horrifically Inaccurate & The Economic Decision To Shutdown The Economy Based On Them Was Wrong

[berg80]

I have many times.

Give me an example.

 

[pyetro]

Your source is an obscure right wing website.

The scientists quoted are world renowned Epidemiologists.....why do Trump-hating snowflakes always attempt to discredit sites when they can't debunk what is being reported?

Their full quotes don't match the title.
Don't spread fake news.

 

[BlindBoo]

The United States government shut down one of the strongest economies this nation has ever seen as it was still roaring, and the catastrophic decision to do so was based on projections by liberal academia experts who used obviously a flawed model / flawed models...

Numerous articles that have been written the last few weeks have begun to question HOW COULD 'EXPERTS' COULD HAVE CREATED A COVID-19 MODEL ADOPTED AND USED TO BASE SUCH MONUMENTAL POLICY UPON BE / HAVE BEEN SO EXTREMELY FAR OFF / FLAWED?


“It’s not a model that most of us in the infectious disease epidemiology field think is well suited” to projecting Covid-19 deaths, epidemiologist Marc Lipsitch of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health told reporters this week, referring to projections by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington."

So the US Government, specifically the Trump administration, was pressured to accept this model and to base the decision to shut down the country - and the roaring economy - on this model advocated by such experts as this member of elitist Liberal academia, an 'expert' on epidemiology from Harvard.
-- Can anyone tell me the last time professors and experts rom liberal elitist indoctrination camps, er...colleges...ever supported Conservatives, Conservative ideology, or a Conservative President?

"A widely followed model for projecting Covid-19 deaths in the U.S. is producing results that have been bouncing up and down like an unpredictable fever, and now epidemiologists are criticizing it as flawed and misleading for both the public and policy makers. In particular, they warn against relying on it as the basis for government decision-making, including on “re-opening America.”

Epidemiologists are now speaking out against the model advocated as the one this administration's policies should be based off of in this pandemic....

Several scientists have come out to say that 'experts' SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN THIS FAR OFF on their modeling...and more than one scientist is questioning WHY there was so much pressure applied to use it as the basis for critical policy decision:

"Others experts, including some colleagues of the model-makers, are even harsher. “That the IHME model keeps changing is evidence of its lack of reliability as a predictive tool,” said epidemiologist Ruth Etzioni of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, who has served on a search committee for IHME. “That it is being used for policy decisions and its results interpreted wrongly is a travesty unfolding before our eyes.”

The catastrophic impact on our economy due to policy decisions based on this horrifically flawed model will inevitably cause the government to make the argument that the final / actual infected and mortality rates are so far off the models due to the policy decisions made; however, this will be more 'political posturing' than a more factual assessment and confirmation that the models were inexplicably off.


There are 2 tried-and-true models that were completely ignored. Instead the model pushed was one that inspired far less confidence:

There are two tried-and-true ways to model an epidemic. The most established, dating back a century, calculates how many people are susceptible to a virus (in the case of the new coronavirus, everyone), how many become exposed, how many of those become infected, and how many recover and therefore have immunity (at least for a while).

"IHME uses neither a SEIR nor an agent-based approach. It doesn’t even try to model the transmission of disease, or the incubation period, or other features of Covid-19, as SEIR and agent-based models at Imperial College London and others do. It doesn’t try to account for how many infected people interact with how many others, how many additional cases each earlier case causes, or other facts of disease transmission that have been the foundation of epidemiology models for decades.

Instead, IHME starts with data from cities where Covid-19 struck before it hit the U.S., first Wuhan and now 19 cities in Italy and Spain."

The most obvious problem with IHME is the blind trust placed in China and the WHO when the virus was 1st reported, trust that was unwarranted. Evidence shows that China was NOT forthcoming with information about the virus in a timely manner - in fact, evidence shows China hid the outbreak. For example, evidence shows China knew about the outbreak as early as OCTOBER 2019 and not only hid news of the outbreak but also allowed the epidemic to spread globally by refusing to cancel international travel from the very epicenter of its outbreak. Furthermore, evidence shows the WHO knew about the epidemic sooner than revealed and were actually misleading the rest of the world by claiming COVID-19 was not a problem, that China was containing the outbreak, and encouraging countries NOT to close its border and impose Travel Bans. CHINA AND THE WHO MISLED THE REST OF THE WORLD FOR MONTHS, AND IN SITUATIONS LIKE THIS TIME = LIVES LOST!

Based on the fact that the IHME begins with and is based on honest, complete data shared by countries / governments / scientists - which China and the WHO STILL has not done, the model was disastrously wrong / inaccurate from the very start.

Many epidemiologists are now pointing out this is why the IHME should never have been considered and definitely should not been pushed as the model to use over the other 2 that do not rely on other governments' / bodies' transparency / willingness to share data.

After OFFICIALLY reporting their epidemic to the WHO China refused to share data, refused to allow the CDC to come in to assess and offer help, they hid / falsified their numbers, and even engaged in propaganda by attempting to claim the USN was responsible for introducing / releasing COVID-19 in China....

So how the hell did an 'expert epidemiologist' from Liberal elitist academia come to the conclusion that US policy should be based IHME that relied on non-existent cooperation, transparency, and virus data-sharing by the Chinese?

Influential Covid-19 model uses flawed methods and shouldn't guide U.S. policies, critics say

A widely followed model for projecting #coronavirus deaths in the U.S. is producing results that have been bouncing up and down like an unpredictable fever.

www.statnews.com

.

The shutdown was caused by the asswipePINO's failure to act on January 10th. I have four bipartican MOC's that prove my case.

THE WHO and CHINA were both saying that the virus was not human to human communicable. We didnt even have ONE fucking case in the US until the 21st of January. Your telling me that we should have tanked our economy for a ghost?

They never said it was not human to human transmittable. They did say they didn't think it was highly contagious until they actually visited Wuhan. By Jan 21 they began to realize how transmittable it is.

‘I never said there was no human-to-human transmission’: China CDC chief

George Gao Fu says medical team concluded ‘very efficient’ transmission between people as soon as it visited Wuhan.

www.scmp.com

 

[berg80]

Actually, if any of you snowflakes would present link/article/fact/expert-supported information

It's pointless. I've done it before on this very subject. You folks are impervious to facts.

NO, you haven't...but thanks for the demonstration on how snowflakes reply to requests for links / supporting info with distraction / excuses but zero links / supporting info...

For at least the second time...............https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/mar/27/donald-trump/fact-checking-whether-biden-called-trump-xenophobi/

 

[berg80]

They never said it was not human to human transmittable. They did say they didn't think it was highly contagious until they actually visited Wuhan. By Jan 21 they began to realize how transmittable it is.

Too late. Now that the lie has been imprinted on Trumpette's brains no amount of factual information will change their mind's.

 

[easyt65]

'Interesting' how Congress awarded Harvard, whose Epidemiologist 'expert' pushed for the IHME model - the most inaccurate and unreliable of 3 models - to be used to base economic policy to shut down the strongest economy in decades (if not ever) with BILLIONS of dollars in COVID-19 Relief cash designated to help Small Businesses (which Pelosi and Democrats screwed by shutting down the House before passing a relief bill to further help small Businesses).....despite Harvard sitting on $41 BILLION for 'helping the kids' as they claim the COVID-19 Small Business Relief money will be used for....and they have declared they have no intention of paying the money back.

Harvard clashes with Trump over coronavirus relief, rebuffs call to return money

Harvard University rejected calls from President Trump on Tuesday to return coronavirus relief money to the federal government, maintaining that the funds from a higher education program under the CARES Act are being used to provide direct assistance to students facing financial turmoil due to...

www.foxnews.com

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

The United States government shut down one of the strongest economies this nation has ever seen as it was still roaring, and the catastrophic decision to do so was based on projections by liberal academia experts who used obviously a flawed model / flawed models...

Numerous articles that have been written the last few weeks have begun to question HOW COULD 'EXPERTS' COULD HAVE CREATED A COVID-19 MODEL ADOPTED AND USED TO BASE SUCH MONUMENTAL POLICY UPON BE / HAVE BEEN SO EXTREMELY FAR OFF / FLAWED?


“It’s not a model that most of us in the infectious disease epidemiology field think is well suited” to projecting Covid-19 deaths, epidemiologist Marc Lipsitch of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health told reporters this week, referring to projections by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington."

So the US Government, specifically the Trump administration, was pressured to accept this model and to base the decision to shut down the country - and the roaring economy - on this model advocated by such experts as this member of elitist Liberal academia, an 'expert' on epidemiology from Harvard.
-- Can anyone tell me the last time professors and experts rom liberal elitist indoctrination camps, er...colleges...ever supported Conservatives, Conservative ideology, or a Conservative President?

"A widely followed model for projecting Covid-19 deaths in the U.S. is producing results that have been bouncing up and down like an unpredictable fever, and now epidemiologists are criticizing it as flawed and misleading for both the public and policy makers. In particular, they warn against relying on it as the basis for government decision-making, including on “re-opening America.”

Epidemiologists are now speaking out against the model advocated as the one this administration's policies should be based off of in this pandemic....

Several scientists have come out to say that 'experts' SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN THIS FAR OFF on their modeling...and more than one scientist is questioning WHY there was so much pressure applied to use it as the basis for critical policy decision:

"Others experts, including some colleagues of the model-makers, are even harsher. “That the IHME model keeps changing is evidence of its lack of reliability as a predictive tool,” said epidemiologist Ruth Etzioni of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, who has served on a search committee for IHME. “That it is being used for policy decisions and its results interpreted wrongly is a travesty unfolding before our eyes.”

The catastrophic impact on our economy due to policy decisions based on this horrifically flawed model will inevitably cause the government to make the argument that the final / actual infected and mortality rates are so far off the models due to the policy decisions made; however, this will be more 'political posturing' than a more factual assessment and confirmation that the models were inexplicably off.


There are 2 tried-and-true models that were completely ignored. Instead the model pushed was one that inspired far less confidence:

There are two tried-and-true ways to model an epidemic. The most established, dating back a century, calculates how many people are susceptible to a virus (in the case of the new coronavirus, everyone), how many become exposed, how many of those become infected, and how many recover and therefore have immunity (at least for a while).

"IHME uses neither a SEIR nor an agent-based approach. It doesn’t even try to model the transmission of disease, or the incubation period, or other features of Covid-19, as SEIR and agent-based models at Imperial College London and others do. It doesn’t try to account for how many infected people interact with how many others, how many additional cases each earlier case causes, or other facts of disease transmission that have been the foundation of epidemiology models for decades.

Instead, IHME starts with data from cities where Covid-19 struck before it hit the U.S., first Wuhan and now 19 cities in Italy and Spain."

The most obvious problem with IHME is the blind trust placed in China and the WHO when the virus was 1st reported, trust that was unwarranted. Evidence shows that China was NOT forthcoming with information about the virus in a timely manner - in fact, evidence shows China hid the outbreak. For example, evidence shows China knew about the outbreak as early as OCTOBER 2019 and not only hid news of the outbreak but also allowed the epidemic to spread globally by refusing to cancel international travel from the very epicenter of its outbreak. Furthermore, evidence shows the WHO knew about the epidemic sooner than revealed and were actually misleading the rest of the world by claiming COVID-19 was not a problem, that China was containing the outbreak, and encouraging countries NOT to close its border and impose Travel Bans. CHINA AND THE WHO MISLED THE REST OF THE WORLD FOR MONTHS, AND IN SITUATIONS LIKE THIS TIME = LIVES LOST!

Based on the fact that the IHME begins with and is based on honest, complete data shared by countries / governments / scientists - which China and the WHO STILL has not done, the model was disastrously wrong / inaccurate from the very start.

Many epidemiologists are now pointing out this is why the IHME should never have been considered and definitely should not been pushed as the model to use over the other 2 that do not rely on other governments' / bodies' transparency / willingness to share data.

After OFFICIALLY reporting their epidemic to the WHO China refused to share data, refused to allow the CDC to come in to assess and offer help, they hid / falsified their numbers, and even engaged in propaganda by attempting to claim the USN was responsible for introducing / releasing COVID-19 in China....

So how the hell did an 'expert epidemiologist' from Liberal elitist academia come to the conclusion that US policy should be based IHME that relied on non-existent cooperation, transparency, and virus data-sharing by the Chinese?

Influential Covid-19 model uses flawed methods and shouldn't guide U.S. policies, critics say

A widely followed model for projecting #coronavirus deaths in the U.S. is producing results that have been bouncing up and down like an unpredictable fever.

www.statnews.com

.

The shutdown was caused by the asswipePINO's failure to act on January 10th. I have four bipartican MOC's that prove my case.

You are an idiot. I have proven this countless times. You wanted Trump to shut down the Super Bowl? Moron.

Listen and weep.

Man. You guys really do just repeat whatever Trump says.

That video had zero to do with Trump. How can you possibly say that. This is why you have zero credibility with me. Please explain that statement. I posted a video that had NOTHING to do with him. Everything with leftists comes back to Trump. TDS?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

I have many times.

Give me an example.

I cannot wait for the MODS to boot you.

Cannot wait. You're such a sniveling foreign troll. China?

 

[easyt65]

Man. You guys really do just repeat whatever Trump says.

Again, thank you for proving you did not bother to open up links and read what world renowned Epidemiologists said...if it isn't a Dem talking point you can parrot, you just don't bother with it....

 

[CowboyTed]

You know, the whole "armchair quarterback" thing gets old real quick.

The reality is that there was no way to know what this thing was going to do. What we knew was we had a highly communicable virus that was getting out of control.

Were poor decisions made? Yes, they were. Were good decisions made? Yes, they were. And not a swignin' dick on this forum would've been able to make decisions which were any more informed than those made by the administration.

Things seem to be slowly coming back around. I know, in Florida, our beaches are open. Local businesses are looking at being able to open, maybe with some restrictions, before too much longer.

I talked to a guy who recently opened a high-end pawn shop here in town (I was selling him some silver), and I asked how he was doing. Now, because pawn shops make loans, they are technically considered to be a bank and, as such, are considered an "essential" business.

He said that, while business was slow, he was also doing business with every single person who walked through his door. No one has been coming in to browse. People come in to buy things, to pawn something or to sell something. He said not a single person has come into his store since he opened without there being some sort of business transaction. He felt that was a positive, and I'd have to agree with him.

So, yeah, undoubtedly mistakes were made. But we were dealing with something which was unprecedented and, in the face of something like that, you err on the side of caution...

And yet the same people who so badly fucked this up will demand we destroy our economy and way of life over climate models.

Predictive models are useless - fact. Follow the science.

Could you please with evidence show that the lockdown didn't work...

Also show us your analysis and evidence if no lockdown occured.

Then finally tell us why US with 5% of the world's population got 33% of the Cases and 25% of the deaths so far when they were the last to experience the full attack and had the most time to prepare.

Finally can you tell how you know this is over?

Until that could you keep you ignorant mouth shut.... You are just putting people's life in danger...

And that goes to all the anti-lockdowners here... Stump up or Shut up....

Could we have a lives lost to GDP growth chart please...

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

'Interesting' how Congress awarded Harvard, whose Epidemiologist 'expert' pushed for the IHME model - the most inaccurate and unreliable of 3 models - to be used to base economic policy to shut down the strongest economy in decades (if not ever) with BILLIONS of dollars in COVID-19 Relief cash designated to help Small Businesses (which Pelosi and Democrats screwed by shutting down the House before passing a relief bill to further help small Businesses).....despite Harvard sitting on $41 BILLION for 'helping the kids' as they claim the COVID-19 Small Business Relief money will be used for....and they have declared they have no intention of paying the money back.

Harvard clashes with Trump over coronavirus relief, rebuffs call to return money

Harvard University rejected calls from President Trump on Tuesday to return coronavirus relief money to the federal government, maintaining that the funds from a higher education program under the CARES Act are being used to provide direct assistance to students facing financial turmoil due to...

www.foxnews.com

Didn't read your own linked story did you? Typical Trump supporter. Low information.

But a Harvard spokesman noted that the nearly $9 million in taxpayer aid it claimed did not come from the PPP program but rather from the CARES Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund, which helped many universities and colleges.
“Harvard did not apply for, nor has it received any funds through the U.S. Small Business Administration’s Paycheck Protection Program for small businesses,” Harvard spokesman Jason Newton said in a statement late Tuesday. “Reports saying otherwise are inaccurate. President Trump is right that it would not have been appropriate for our institution to receive funds that were designated for struggling small businesses.”

 

[colfax_m]

The United States government shut down one of the strongest economies this nation has ever seen as it was still roaring, and the catastrophic decision to do so was based on projections by liberal academia experts who used obviously a flawed model / flawed models...

Numerous articles that have been written the last few weeks have begun to question HOW COULD 'EXPERTS' COULD HAVE CREATED A COVID-19 MODEL ADOPTED AND USED TO BASE SUCH MONUMENTAL POLICY UPON BE / HAVE BEEN SO EXTREMELY FAR OFF / FLAWED?


“It’s not a model that most of us in the infectious disease epidemiology field think is well suited” to projecting Covid-19 deaths, epidemiologist Marc Lipsitch of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health told reporters this week, referring to projections by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington."

So the US Government, specifically the Trump administration, was pressured to accept this model and to base the decision to shut down the country - and the roaring economy - on this model advocated by such experts as this member of elitist Liberal academia, an 'expert' on epidemiology from Harvard.
-- Can anyone tell me the last time professors and experts rom liberal elitist indoctrination camps, er...colleges...ever supported Conservatives, Conservative ideology, or a Conservative President?

"A widely followed model for projecting Covid-19 deaths in the U.S. is producing results that have been bouncing up and down like an unpredictable fever, and now epidemiologists are criticizing it as flawed and misleading for both the public and policy makers. In particular, they warn against relying on it as the basis for government decision-making, including on “re-opening America.”

Epidemiologists are now speaking out against the model advocated as the one this administration's policies should be based off of in this pandemic....

Several scientists have come out to say that 'experts' SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN THIS FAR OFF on their modeling...and more than one scientist is questioning WHY there was so much pressure applied to use it as the basis for critical policy decision:

"Others experts, including some colleagues of the model-makers, are even harsher. “That the IHME model keeps changing is evidence of its lack of reliability as a predictive tool,” said epidemiologist Ruth Etzioni of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, who has served on a search committee for IHME. “That it is being used for policy decisions and its results interpreted wrongly is a travesty unfolding before our eyes.”

The catastrophic impact on our economy due to policy decisions based on this horrifically flawed model will inevitably cause the government to make the argument that the final / actual infected and mortality rates are so far off the models due to the policy decisions made; however, this will be more 'political posturing' than a more factual assessment and confirmation that the models were inexplicably off.


There are 2 tried-and-true models that were completely ignored. Instead the model pushed was one that inspired far less confidence:

There are two tried-and-true ways to model an epidemic. The most established, dating back a century, calculates how many people are susceptible to a virus (in the case of the new coronavirus, everyone), how many become exposed, how many of those become infected, and how many recover and therefore have immunity (at least for a while).

"IHME uses neither a SEIR nor an agent-based approach. It doesn’t even try to model the transmission of disease, or the incubation period, or other features of Covid-19, as SEIR and agent-based models at Imperial College London and others do. It doesn’t try to account for how many infected people interact with how many others, how many additional cases each earlier case causes, or other facts of disease transmission that have been the foundation of epidemiology models for decades.

Instead, IHME starts with data from cities where Covid-19 struck before it hit the U.S., first Wuhan and now 19 cities in Italy and Spain."

The most obvious problem with IHME is the blind trust placed in China and the WHO when the virus was 1st reported, trust that was unwarranted. Evidence shows that China was NOT forthcoming with information about the virus in a timely manner - in fact, evidence shows China hid the outbreak. For example, evidence shows China knew about the outbreak as early as OCTOBER 2019 and not only hid news of the outbreak but also allowed the epidemic to spread globally by refusing to cancel international travel from the very epicenter of its outbreak. Furthermore, evidence shows the WHO knew about the epidemic sooner than revealed and were actually misleading the rest of the world by claiming COVID-19 was not a problem, that China was containing the outbreak, and encouraging countries NOT to close its border and impose Travel Bans. CHINA AND THE WHO MISLED THE REST OF THE WORLD FOR MONTHS, AND IN SITUATIONS LIKE THIS TIME = LIVES LOST!

Based on the fact that the IHME begins with and is based on honest, complete data shared by countries / governments / scientists - which China and the WHO STILL has not done, the model was disastrously wrong / inaccurate from the very start.

Many epidemiologists are now pointing out this is why the IHME should never have been considered and definitely should not been pushed as the model to use over the other 2 that do not rely on other governments' / bodies' transparency / willingness to share data.

After OFFICIALLY reporting their epidemic to the WHO China refused to share data, refused to allow the CDC to come in to assess and offer help, they hid / falsified their numbers, and even engaged in propaganda by attempting to claim the USN was responsible for introducing / releasing COVID-19 in China....

So how the hell did an 'expert epidemiologist' from Liberal elitist academia come to the conclusion that US policy should be based IHME that relied on non-existent cooperation, transparency, and virus data-sharing by the Chinese?

Influential Covid-19 model uses flawed methods and shouldn't guide U.S. policies, critics say

A widely followed model for projecting #coronavirus deaths in the U.S. is producing results that have been bouncing up and down like an unpredictable fever.

www.statnews.com

.

The shutdown was caused by the asswipePINO's failure to act on January 10th. I have four bipartican MOC's that prove my case.

You are an idiot. I have proven this countless times. You wanted Trump to shut down the Super Bowl? Moron.

Listen and weep.

Man. You guys really do just repeat whatever Trump says.

That video had zero to do with Trump. How can you possibly say that. This is why you have zero credibility with me. Please explain that statement. I posted a video that had NOTHING to do with him. Everything with leftists comes back to Trump. TDS?

Because this just so happens to be the new narrative that Trump has been pushing.

Is that a coincidence? Of course not. That’s why you have zero credibility.

The clips in the video are from January and early February when we had just a handful of cases. It’s dishonest.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The United States government shut down one of the strongest economies this nation has ever seen as it was still roaring, and the catastrophic decision to do so was based on projections by liberal academia experts who used obviously a flawed model / flawed models...

Numerous articles that have been written the last few weeks have begun to question HOW COULD 'EXPERTS' COULD HAVE CREATED A COVID-19 MODEL ADOPTED AND USED TO BASE SUCH MONUMENTAL POLICY UPON BE / HAVE BEEN SO EXTREMELY FAR OFF / FLAWED?


“It’s not a model that most of us in the infectious disease epidemiology field think is well suited” to projecting Covid-19 deaths, epidemiologist Marc Lipsitch of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health told reporters this week, referring to projections by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington."

So the US Government, specifically the Trump administration, was pressured to accept this model and to base the decision to shut down the country - and the roaring economy - on this model advocated by such experts as this member of elitist Liberal academia, an 'expert' on epidemiology from Harvard.
-- Can anyone tell me the last time professors and experts rom liberal elitist indoctrination camps, er...colleges...ever supported Conservatives, Conservative ideology, or a Conservative President?

"A widely followed model for projecting Covid-19 deaths in the U.S. is producing results that have been bouncing up and down like an unpredictable fever, and now epidemiologists are criticizing it as flawed and misleading for both the public and policy makers. In particular, they warn against relying on it as the basis for government decision-making, including on “re-opening America.”

Epidemiologists are now speaking out against the model advocated as the one this administration's policies should be based off of in this pandemic....

Several scientists have come out to say that 'experts' SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN THIS FAR OFF on their modeling...and more than one scientist is questioning WHY there was so much pressure applied to use it as the basis for critical policy decision:

"Others experts, including some colleagues of the model-makers, are even harsher. “That the IHME model keeps changing is evidence of its lack of reliability as a predictive tool,” said epidemiologist Ruth Etzioni of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, who has served on a search committee for IHME. “That it is being used for policy decisions and its results interpreted wrongly is a travesty unfolding before our eyes.”

The catastrophic impact on our economy due to policy decisions based on this horrifically flawed model will inevitably cause the government to make the argument that the final / actual infected and mortality rates are so far off the models due to the policy decisions made; however, this will be more 'political posturing' than a more factual assessment and confirmation that the models were inexplicably off.


There are 2 tried-and-true models that were completely ignored. Instead the model pushed was one that inspired far less confidence:

There are two tried-and-true ways to model an epidemic. The most established, dating back a century, calculates how many people are susceptible to a virus (in the case of the new coronavirus, everyone), how many become exposed, how many of those become infected, and how many recover and therefore have immunity (at least for a while).

"IHME uses neither a SEIR nor an agent-based approach. It doesn’t even try to model the transmission of disease, or the incubation period, or other features of Covid-19, as SEIR and agent-based models at Imperial College London and others do. It doesn’t try to account for how many infected people interact with how many others, how many additional cases each earlier case causes, or other facts of disease transmission that have been the foundation of epidemiology models for decades.

Instead, IHME starts with data from cities where Covid-19 struck before it hit the U.S., first Wuhan and now 19 cities in Italy and Spain."

The most obvious problem with IHME is the blind trust placed in China and the WHO when the virus was 1st reported, trust that was unwarranted. Evidence shows that China was NOT forthcoming with information about the virus in a timely manner - in fact, evidence shows China hid the outbreak. For example, evidence shows China knew about the outbreak as early as OCTOBER 2019 and not only hid news of the outbreak but also allowed the epidemic to spread globally by refusing to cancel international travel from the very epicenter of its outbreak. Furthermore, evidence shows the WHO knew about the epidemic sooner than revealed and were actually misleading the rest of the world by claiming COVID-19 was not a problem, that China was containing the outbreak, and encouraging countries NOT to close its border and impose Travel Bans. CHINA AND THE WHO MISLED THE REST OF THE WORLD FOR MONTHS, AND IN SITUATIONS LIKE THIS TIME = LIVES LOST!

Based on the fact that the IHME begins with and is based on honest, complete data shared by countries / governments / scientists - which China and the WHO STILL has not done, the model was disastrously wrong / inaccurate from the very start.

Many epidemiologists are now pointing out this is why the IHME should never have been considered and definitely should not been pushed as the model to use over the other 2 that do not rely on other governments' / bodies' transparency / willingness to share data.

After OFFICIALLY reporting their epidemic to the WHO China refused to share data, refused to allow the CDC to come in to assess and offer help, they hid / falsified their numbers, and even engaged in propaganda by attempting to claim the USN was responsible for introducing / releasing COVID-19 in China....

So how the hell did an 'expert epidemiologist' from Liberal elitist academia come to the conclusion that US policy should be based IHME that relied on non-existent cooperation, transparency, and virus data-sharing by the Chinese?

Influential Covid-19 model uses flawed methods and shouldn't guide U.S. policies, critics say

A widely followed model for projecting #coronavirus deaths in the U.S. is producing results that have been bouncing up and down like an unpredictable fever.

www.statnews.com

.

The shutdown was caused by the asswipePINO's failure to act on January 10th. I have four bipartican MOC's that prove my case.

THE WHO and CHINA were both saying that the virus was not human to human communicable. We didnt even have ONE fucking case in the US until the 21st of January. Your telling me that we should have tanked our economy for a ghost?

They never said it was not human to human transmittable. They did say they didn't think it was highly contagious until they actually visited Wuhan. By Jan 21 they began to realize how transmittable it is.

‘I never said there was no human-to-human transmission’: China CDC chief

George Gao Fu says medical team concluded ‘very efficient’ transmission between people as soon as it visited Wuhan.

www.scmp.com

The WHO and China both stated as late as January 14th that there was no human to human transmission.. Epic fail at trying to rewrite history.

WHO haunted by old tweet saying China found no human transmission of coronavirus

The World Health Organization (WHO) is now haunted by a tweet it sent earlier this year when it cited Chinese health officials who claimed there had been no human transmissions of the novel coronav…

nypost.com

 

[colfax_m]

Man. You guys really do just repeat whatever Trump says.

Again, thank you for proving you did not bother to open up links and read what world renowned Epidemiologists said...if it isn't a Dem talking point you can parrot, you just don't bother with it....

I actually read the paper and came to my own conclusions. Can you say the same?

 

[colfax_m]

The United States government shut down one of the strongest economies this nation has ever seen as it was still roaring, and the catastrophic decision to do so was based on projections by liberal academia experts who used obviously a flawed model / flawed models...

Numerous articles that have been written the last few weeks have begun to question HOW COULD 'EXPERTS' COULD HAVE CREATED A COVID-19 MODEL ADOPTED AND USED TO BASE SUCH MONUMENTAL POLICY UPON BE / HAVE BEEN SO EXTREMELY FAR OFF / FLAWED?


“It’s not a model that most of us in the infectious disease epidemiology field think is well suited” to projecting Covid-19 deaths, epidemiologist Marc Lipsitch of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health told reporters this week, referring to projections by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington."

So the US Government, specifically the Trump administration, was pressured to accept this model and to base the decision to shut down the country - and the roaring economy - on this model advocated by such experts as this member of elitist Liberal academia, an 'expert' on epidemiology from Harvard.
-- Can anyone tell me the last time professors and experts rom liberal elitist indoctrination camps, er...colleges...ever supported Conservatives, Conservative ideology, or a Conservative President?

"A widely followed model for projecting Covid-19 deaths in the U.S. is producing results that have been bouncing up and down like an unpredictable fever, and now epidemiologists are criticizing it as flawed and misleading for both the public and policy makers. In particular, they warn against relying on it as the basis for government decision-making, including on “re-opening America.”

Epidemiologists are now speaking out against the model advocated as the one this administration's policies should be based off of in this pandemic....

Several scientists have come out to say that 'experts' SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN THIS FAR OFF on their modeling...and more than one scientist is questioning WHY there was so much pressure applied to use it as the basis for critical policy decision:

"Others experts, including some colleagues of the model-makers, are even harsher. “That the IHME model keeps changing is evidence of its lack of reliability as a predictive tool,” said epidemiologist Ruth Etzioni of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, who has served on a search committee for IHME. “That it is being used for policy decisions and its results interpreted wrongly is a travesty unfolding before our eyes.”

The catastrophic impact on our economy due to policy decisions based on this horrifically flawed model will inevitably cause the government to make the argument that the final / actual infected and mortality rates are so far off the models due to the policy decisions made; however, this will be more 'political posturing' than a more factual assessment and confirmation that the models were inexplicably off.


There are 2 tried-and-true models that were completely ignored. Instead the model pushed was one that inspired far less confidence:

There are two tried-and-true ways to model an epidemic. The most established, dating back a century, calculates how many people are susceptible to a virus (in the case of the new coronavirus, everyone), how many become exposed, how many of those become infected, and how many recover and therefore have immunity (at least for a while).

"IHME uses neither a SEIR nor an agent-based approach. It doesn’t even try to model the transmission of disease, or the incubation period, or other features of Covid-19, as SEIR and agent-based models at Imperial College London and others do. It doesn’t try to account for how many infected people interact with how many others, how many additional cases each earlier case causes, or other facts of disease transmission that have been the foundation of epidemiology models for decades.

Instead, IHME starts with data from cities where Covid-19 struck before it hit the U.S., first Wuhan and now 19 cities in Italy and Spain."

The most obvious problem with IHME is the blind trust placed in China and the WHO when the virus was 1st reported, trust that was unwarranted. Evidence shows that China was NOT forthcoming with information about the virus in a timely manner - in fact, evidence shows China hid the outbreak. For example, evidence shows China knew about the outbreak as early as OCTOBER 2019 and not only hid news of the outbreak but also allowed the epidemic to spread globally by refusing to cancel international travel from the very epicenter of its outbreak. Furthermore, evidence shows the WHO knew about the epidemic sooner than revealed and were actually misleading the rest of the world by claiming COVID-19 was not a problem, that China was containing the outbreak, and encouraging countries NOT to close its border and impose Travel Bans. CHINA AND THE WHO MISLED THE REST OF THE WORLD FOR MONTHS, AND IN SITUATIONS LIKE THIS TIME = LIVES LOST!

Based on the fact that the IHME begins with and is based on honest, complete data shared by countries / governments / scientists - which China and the WHO STILL has not done, the model was disastrously wrong / inaccurate from the very start.

Many epidemiologists are now pointing out this is why the IHME should never have been considered and definitely should not been pushed as the model to use over the other 2 that do not rely on other governments' / bodies' transparency / willingness to share data.

After OFFICIALLY reporting their epidemic to the WHO China refused to share data, refused to allow the CDC to come in to assess and offer help, they hid / falsified their numbers, and even engaged in propaganda by attempting to claim the USN was responsible for introducing / releasing COVID-19 in China....

So how the hell did an 'expert epidemiologist' from Liberal elitist academia come to the conclusion that US policy should be based IHME that relied on non-existent cooperation, transparency, and virus data-sharing by the Chinese?

Influential Covid-19 model uses flawed methods and shouldn't guide U.S. policies, critics say

A widely followed model for projecting #coronavirus deaths in the U.S. is producing results that have been bouncing up and down like an unpredictable fever.

www.statnews.com

.

The shutdown was caused by the asswipePINO's failure to act on January 10th. I have four bipartican MOC's that prove my case.

THE WHO and CHINA were both saying that the virus was not human to human communicable. We didnt even have ONE fucking case in the US until the 21st of January. Your telling me that we should have tanked our economy for a ghost?

They never said it was not human to human transmittable. They did say they didn't think it was highly contagious until they actually visited Wuhan. By Jan 21 they began to realize how transmittable it is.

‘I never said there was no human-to-human transmission’: China CDC chief

George Gao Fu says medical team concluded ‘very efficient’ transmission between people as soon as it visited Wuhan.

www.scmp.com

The WHO and China both stated as late as February 12th that there was no human to human transmission.. Epic fail at trying to rewrite history.

Which is false.

 

[berg80]

to be used to base economic policy to shut down the strongest economy in decades (if not ever)

You think 2ish% GDP growth means we had the "strongest economy ever?" You are too far gone to be reached. Do you begin drooling when you see Trump's face on the TV?

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

The United States government shut down one of the strongest economies this nation has ever seen as it was still roaring, and the catastrophic decision to do so was based on projections by liberal academia experts who used obviously a flawed model / flawed models...

Numerous articles that have been written the last few weeks have begun to question HOW COULD 'EXPERTS' COULD HAVE CREATED A COVID-19 MODEL ADOPTED AND USED TO BASE SUCH MONUMENTAL POLICY UPON BE / HAVE BEEN SO EXTREMELY FAR OFF / FLAWED?


“It’s not a model that most of us in the infectious disease epidemiology field think is well suited” to projecting Covid-19 deaths, epidemiologist Marc Lipsitch of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health told reporters this week, referring to projections by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington."

So the US Government, specifically the Trump administration, was pressured to accept this model and to base the decision to shut down the country - and the roaring economy - on this model advocated by such experts as this member of elitist Liberal academia, an 'expert' on epidemiology from Harvard.
-- Can anyone tell me the last time professors and experts rom liberal elitist indoctrination camps, er...colleges...ever supported Conservatives, Conservative ideology, or a Conservative President?

"A widely followed model for projecting Covid-19 deaths in the U.S. is producing results that have been bouncing up and down like an unpredictable fever, and now epidemiologists are criticizing it as flawed and misleading for both the public and policy makers. In particular, they warn against relying on it as the basis for government decision-making, including on “re-opening America.”

Epidemiologists are now speaking out against the model advocated as the one this administration's policies should be based off of in this pandemic....

Several scientists have come out to say that 'experts' SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN THIS FAR OFF on their modeling...and more than one scientist is questioning WHY there was so much pressure applied to use it as the basis for critical policy decision:

"Others experts, including some colleagues of the model-makers, are even harsher. “That the IHME model keeps changing is evidence of its lack of reliability as a predictive tool,” said epidemiologist Ruth Etzioni of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, who has served on a search committee for IHME. “That it is being used for policy decisions and its results interpreted wrongly is a travesty unfolding before our eyes.”

The catastrophic impact on our economy due to policy decisions based on this horrifically flawed model will inevitably cause the government to make the argument that the final / actual infected and mortality rates are so far off the models due to the policy decisions made; however, this will be more 'political posturing' than a more factual assessment and confirmation that the models were inexplicably off.


There are 2 tried-and-true models that were completely ignored. Instead the model pushed was one that inspired far less confidence:

There are two tried-and-true ways to model an epidemic. The most established, dating back a century, calculates how many people are susceptible to a virus (in the case of the new coronavirus, everyone), how many become exposed, how many of those become infected, and how many recover and therefore have immunity (at least for a while).

"IHME uses neither a SEIR nor an agent-based approach. It doesn’t even try to model the transmission of disease, or the incubation period, or other features of Covid-19, as SEIR and agent-based models at Imperial College London and others do. It doesn’t try to account for how many infected people interact with how many others, how many additional cases each earlier case causes, or other facts of disease transmission that have been the foundation of epidemiology models for decades.

Instead, IHME starts with data from cities where Covid-19 struck before it hit the U.S., first Wuhan and now 19 cities in Italy and Spain."

The most obvious problem with IHME is the blind trust placed in China and the WHO when the virus was 1st reported, trust that was unwarranted. Evidence shows that China was NOT forthcoming with information about the virus in a timely manner - in fact, evidence shows China hid the outbreak. For example, evidence shows China knew about the outbreak as early as OCTOBER 2019 and not only hid news of the outbreak but also allowed the epidemic to spread globally by refusing to cancel international travel from the very epicenter of its outbreak. Furthermore, evidence shows the WHO knew about the epidemic sooner than revealed and were actually misleading the rest of the world by claiming COVID-19 was not a problem, that China was containing the outbreak, and encouraging countries NOT to close its border and impose Travel Bans. CHINA AND THE WHO MISLED THE REST OF THE WORLD FOR MONTHS, AND IN SITUATIONS LIKE THIS TIME = LIVES LOST!

Based on the fact that the IHME begins with and is based on honest, complete data shared by countries / governments / scientists - which China and the WHO STILL has not done, the model was disastrously wrong / inaccurate from the very start.

Many epidemiologists are now pointing out this is why the IHME should never have been considered and definitely should not been pushed as the model to use over the other 2 that do not rely on other governments' / bodies' transparency / willingness to share data.

After OFFICIALLY reporting their epidemic to the WHO China refused to share data, refused to allow the CDC to come in to assess and offer help, they hid / falsified their numbers, and even engaged in propaganda by attempting to claim the USN was responsible for introducing / releasing COVID-19 in China....

So how the hell did an 'expert epidemiologist' from Liberal elitist academia come to the conclusion that US policy should be based IHME that relied on non-existent cooperation, transparency, and virus data-sharing by the Chinese?

Influential Covid-19 model uses flawed methods and shouldn't guide U.S. policies, critics say

A widely followed model for projecting #coronavirus deaths in the U.S. is producing results that have been bouncing up and down like an unpredictable fever.

www.statnews.com

.

The shutdown was caused by the asswipePINO's failure to act on January 10th. I have four bipartican MOC's that prove my case.

THE WHO and CHINA were both saying that the virus was not human to human communicable. We didnt even have ONE fucking case in the US until the 21st of January. Your telling me that we should have tanked our economy for a ghost?

They never said it was not human to human transmittable. They did say they didn't think it was highly contagious until they actually visited Wuhan. By Jan 21 they began to realize how transmittable it is.

‘I never said there was no human-to-human transmission’: China CDC chief

George Gao Fu says medical team concluded ‘very efficient’ transmission between people as soon as it visited Wuhan.

www.scmp.com

The WHO and China both stated as late as February 12th that there was no human to human transmission.. Epic fail at trying to rewrite history.

Not even close. The last issued statement that they did not believe it was transmitted this way was January 16th. Then on January 30th, they reversed.
WHO Calls Coronavirus ‘Emergency’ as Person-to-Person Spread Confirmed in U.S.

 

[easyt65]

For at least the second time...............https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/mar/27/donald-trump/fact-checking-whether-biden-called-trump-xenophobi/

So according to the liberally biased and laughable 'politifact', Biden responding to Trump's travel ban by saying "This is no time for Donald Trump's record of hysteria xenophobia, hysterical xenophobia, and fear-mongering to lead the way instead of science" Biden was NOT saying / inferring / calling Trump's Travel Ban 'xenophobic' / 'hysterical Xenophobia'?!



BWUHAHAHAHAHA...WTF?!

My 2yo grandson can make up better bullshit than that, dude!

Yours and 'politiHACK's attempt to re-write the history of failed Democrat comments and policy decisions just bombed horribly!

 

[Brain357]

For at least the second time...............https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/mar/27/donald-trump/fact-checking-whether-biden-called-trump-xenophobi/

So according to the liberally biased and laughable 'politifact', Biden responding to Trump's travel ban by saying "This is no time for Donald Trump's record of hysteria xenophobia, hysterical xenophobia, and fear-mongering to lead the way instead of science" Biden was NOT saying / inferring / calling Trump's Travel Ban 'xenophobic' / 'hysterical Xenophobia'?!

View attachment 326606

BWUHAHAHAHAHA...WTF?!

My 2yo grandson can make up better bullshit than that, dude!

You have a grandson? You must be old...

 

[AntonToo]

And not a swignin' dick on this forum would've been able to make decisions which were any more informed than those made by the administration.

How the hell would you know that?

Certainly Trump's denials and misnformation spread of the covid-19 risk in February rose well beyond what a lot of people, left and right were guaging it to be.

Beyond Trump's unique diarhia of the mouth administration's neglect on making testing available and stockpiling of medical supplies as China's cities went into shutdown was a blunder so gross that its tough to imagine others fucking up like that. There was no downside to make that a priority even if the inevitability of the spread beyond china wasn't certain.