The P&R Plague Thread (Covid-19)

[Archy1221]

7 hours ago, Lorewarn said:

 

 

Who was that and when did they predict it?

The initial tracking models.  From February/March/April 2020.  Around the same time as the people predicting minimal death counts 

 

Pretty surprised you don’t remember this, as they were used to sell the lockdowns to the public.  

[DevoHusker]

7 hours ago, Lorewarn said:

 

 

Who was that and when did they predict it?

Go back about 600 pages here

[commando]

i went through the first 33 pages of this thread and found 2 predictions.   UNMC model said 480,000 dead.

 

CDC said 680,000 dead.    

 

no time to go through more pages now.but that CDC estimate looks pretty accurate.

[DevoHusker]

10 minutes ago, commando said:

i went through the first 33 pages of this thread and found 2 predictions.   UNMC model said 480,000 dead.

 

CDC said 680,000 dead.    

 

no time to go through more pages now.but that CDC estimate looks pretty accurate.

I think there was reference to the 2.2 million US deaths of the "Imperial" report...?

 

I did the same, and only got through about 50 pages. I agree, the CDC estimate looks to be closest to reality. 

[DevoHusker]

Found references https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01003-6

and

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(21)00029-X/fulltext 

[RedDenver]

15 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

They are still closer than the “expert” 2 million deaths by end of 2020 idiots who are still deemed “experts” by some 

Wrong again Archy. That report was a worst-case scenario where no actions were taken to combat the virus. Devo linked that report:

 

57 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

Found references https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01003-6

Quote

The same model suggested that, with no action, the United States might face 2.2 million deaths; it was shared with the White House and new guidance on social distancing quickly followed (see ‘Simulation shock’).

 

[Jason Sitoke]

18 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Wrong again Archy. That report was a worst-case scenario where no actions were taken to combat the virus. Devo linked that report:

 

 

I don't find the 2.2 million number to be that unreasonable.  Prior to vaccination, loose estimate on COVID case/mortality was between 0.4-0.6%.  Assuming no mitigation measures were in place at all and most of the population was exposed, you'd be looking at over 1.5 million deaths.

 

There are some pretty simplistic assumptions at play here, but our data set is kind of limited.  

[knapplc]

So... now we're back to attacking the "experts." 

 

Who should we be listening to, if those experts were all so wrong?

[Archy1221]

2 hours ago, commando said:

i went through the first 33 pages of this thread and found 2 predictions.   UNMC model said 480,000 dead.

 

CDC said 680,000 dead.    

 

no time to go through more pages now.but that CDC estimate looks pretty accurate.

The UNMC model was within 2 or 3 months I believe. 

[Archy1221]

49 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Wrong again Archy. That report was a worst-case scenario where no actions were taken to combat the virus. Devo linked that report:

 

 

I’m not wrong as that was the model being used

[RedDenver]

Just now, Archy1221 said:

I’m not wrong as that was the model being used

You can keep defending the wildly incorrect tweets by "experts" that clearly had no idea what they were talking about. I know you'll try the old "I wasn't defending them" but we can all see what you're trying to do.

[Archy1221]

Just now, RedDenver said:

You can keep defending the wildly incorrect tweets by "experts" that clearly had no idea what they were talking about. I know you'll try the old "I wasn't defending them" but we can all see what you're trying to do.

You must be blind then I guess.  It’s awfully funny when you make fun of people who made guesses on how many would perish and were wrong, yet defend others who made predictions but were equally or more wrong.  Very entertaining to watch happen. 

[RedDenver]

1 minute ago, Archy1221 said:

You must be blind then I guess.  It’s awfully funny when you make fun of people who made guesses on how many would perish and were wrong, yet defend others who made predictions but were equally or more wrong.  Very entertaining to watch happen. 

Yep, the worst-case scenario estimate being 3 times higher than the actual result is TOTALLY the same as dismissing the pandemic and estimating 35 times lower than the actual result. And you keep bringing up the covid-denier side and trying to distract/minimize how ridiculous they were and are is totally coincidence. It's more sad than funny.

[Archy1221]

8 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Yep, the worst-case scenario estimate being 3 times higher than the actual result is TOTALLY the same as dismissing the pandemic and estimating 35 times lower than the actual result. And you keep bringing up the covid-denier side and trying to distract/minimize how ridiculous they were and are is totally coincidence. It's more sad than funny.

So what’s the difference between someone predicting worst case scenario from someone predicting best case scenario?   They are both wrong.  It’s funny you only defend one of the wrong predictions.   BTW, the person you presented originally is not a Covid denier.  Why are you saying this?  I know why, because you are trying to further trash someone who made a wrong prediction. 

[RedDenver]

28 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

So what’s the difference between someone predicting worst case scenario from someone predicting best case scenario?   They are both wrong.  It’s funny you only defend one of the wrong predictions.   BTW, the person you presented originally is not a Covid denier.  Why are you saying this?  I know why, because you are trying to further trash someone who made a wrong prediction. 

Why are you pretending that a prediction off by an order of magnitude more than another prediction is essentially the same? We all know why. And why jump in and defend a dangerously wrong prediction? Again, we all know why. Both sides-ing at it's "finest".