It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Epidemiologist Behind Virus Model That Many States Rely On Drastically Revises Data!

page: 1
30
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+10 more 
posted on Mar, 26 2020 @ 03:05 PM
link   
The virus model I'm referring to is the Imperial College London model, which is headed by Professor/Epidemiologist Neil Ferguson.

Many state governors and city mayors in the US are using an online mapping tool called COVID Act Now, which uses the data from the Imperial College London virus model. These US state and local officials use this tool to make decisions on shelter-in-place orders and what needs to be closed in their state/cities.

Here's some interesting information on the mapping tool site COVID Act Now: Founders of the site include Democratic Rep. Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins and three Silicon Valley tech workers and Democratic activists — Zachary Rosen, Max Henderson, and Igor Kofman — who are all also donors to various Democratic campaigns and political organizations since 2016. Henderson and Kofman donated to the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2016, while Rosen donated to the Democratic National Committee, recently resigned Democratic Rep. Katie Hill, and other Democratic candidates. Prior to building the COVID Act Now website, Kofman created an online game designed to raise $1 million for the eventual 2020 Democratic candidate and defeat President Trump. The game’s website is now defunct.



In an article published on March 24, Oxford epidemiologist Sunetra Gupta stated that the Imperial College London model was flawed:


Government policy and guidance crafted in an effort to “flatten the curve” of coronavirus-related deaths has largely been based upon an Imperial College London model headed by Professor Neil Ferguson.

The terrifying model shows that as many as 2.2 million Americans could perish from the virus if no action is taken, peaking in June.

However, that model is likely highly flawed, Oxford epidemiologist Sunetra Gupta argues.

LINK

Yesterday, epidemiologist Neil Ferguson offered a massive revision to his model on Wednesday.


Ferguson’s model projected 2.2 million dead people in the United States and 500,000 in the U.K. from COVID-19 if no action were taken to slow the virus and blunt its curve.

However, after just one day of ordered lockdowns in the U.K., Ferguson is presenting drastically downgraded estimates, revealing that far more people likely have the virus than his team figured. Now, the epidemiologist predicts, hospitals will be just fine taking on COVID-19 patients and estimates 20,000 or far fewer people will die from the virus itself or from its agitation of other ailments, as reported by New Scientist Wednesday.

Ferguson thus dropped his prediction from 500,000 dead to 20,000.

Author and former New York Times reporter Alex Berenson broke down the bombshell report via Twitter on Thursday morning (view Twitter thread below).

“This is a remarkable turn from Neil Ferguson, who led the [Imperial College] authors who warned of 500,000 UK deaths — and who has now himself tested positive for #COVID,” started Berenson.

LINK



So much for the prediction of 2.2 million dead people in the United States...I guess the sky isn't falling after all. I wonder if this new revelation will be discussed by the fear mongering media in the US? I have a hunch President Trump is aware of this and it's probably the reason why he wants to get people back to work by Easter. Thoughts?
edit on 3/26/2020 by shawmanfromny because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 26 2020 @ 03:06 PM
link   
Imagine that.



posted on Mar, 26 2020 @ 03:14 PM
link   
a reply to: shawmanfromny


He said that expected increases in National Health Service capacity and ongoing restrictions to people’s movements make him “reasonably confident” the health service can cope when the predicted peak of the epidemic arrives in two or three weeks. UK deaths from the disease are now unlikely to exceed 20,000, he said, and could be much lower.

The need for intensive care beds will get very close to capacity in some areas, but won’t be breached at a national level, said Ferguson. The projections are based on computer simulations of the virus spreading, which take into account the properties of the virus, the reduced transmission between people asked to stay at home and the capacity of hospitals, particularly intensive care units.
emphases mine

UK has enough intensive care units for coronavirus, expert predicts

Please note that these projections take into account the measures being taken by having people stay at home. If those measure had not been taken, then the original projected numbers still hold.


+13 more 
posted on Mar, 26 2020 @ 03:22 PM
link   
One of the more prolific leftists on this board even predicted 350 million dead worldwide.

I'm sure this news is very upsetting to him.



posted on Mar, 26 2020 @ 03:22 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Did you forget about him raising the RO number for the virus, which means MORE people have caught this virus than was initially estimated?


New data from the rest of Europe suggests that the outbreak is running faster than expected, said Ferguson. As a result, epidemiologists have revised their estimate of the reproduction number (R0) of the virus. This measure of how many other people a carrier usually infects is now believed to be just over three, he said, up from 2.5.

www.newscientist.com...

And as far as you thinking "the original projected numbers still hold," what about the countless thousands who caught this virus, fully recovered and who were NEVER tested, thinking that all they had was a cold of regular flu?



posted on Mar, 26 2020 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: shawmanfromny

Precisely.

That model is an abject failure.



posted on Mar, 26 2020 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: shawmanfromny


He said that expected increases in National Health Service capacity and ongoing restrictions to people’s movements make him “reasonably confident” the health service can cope when the predicted peak of the epidemic arrives in two or three weeks. UK deaths from the disease are now unlikely to exceed 20,000, he said, and could be much lower.

The need for intensive care beds will get very close to capacity in some areas, but won’t be breached at a national level, said Ferguson. The projections are based on computer simulations of the virus spreading, which take into account the properties of the virus, the reduced transmission between people asked to stay at home and the capacity of hospitals, particularly intensive care units.
emphases mine

UK has enough intensive care units for coronavirus, expert predicts

Please note that these projections take into account the measures being taken by having people stay at home. If those measure had not been taken, then the original projected numbers still hold.


I'm interested in knowing what the thresholds for the SAH measures were. What percentage of the population did they use for the data input there? 10%? 20%? 100%? That matters a hell of a lot when trying to determine if "original numbers would have held" or not.


+6 more 
posted on Mar, 26 2020 @ 03:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: TomLawless
a reply to: shawmanfromny

Precisely.

That model is an abject failure.



Similar to most climate change models, garbage in, garbage out.



posted on Mar, 26 2020 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: shawmanfromny

It says right at the bottom of the article that Ferguson's revised report is not saying his original numbers were 'wrong' -

- but that the new estimates are showing the effectiveness of the lockdowns...


That Alex Berenson kind of read the report wrong and jumped to a conclusion...

...this is not a "bombshell" - it's just 'news from the front'...
edit on 26-3-2020 by lostgirl because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2020 @ 03:32 PM
link   
This means that anyone who took the previous model as gospel because of who made it now have to take the new predictions seriously as well.



posted on Mar, 26 2020 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: shawmanfromny

So I guess we can just tell all of those people in hospitals in Italy and Spain that they can just go home because they are obviously not as sick as they (or the doctors) think they are and that hospitals and medical staff in New York can stand down?

Not to mention, the rest of your quote that was missing:


“That adds more evidence to support the more intensive social distancing measures,” he said.



posted on Mar, 26 2020 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Probably shared same modeling assumptions with climate change scientists....

Too many people never want to question the data or modeling assumptions. We see this all the time when discussing climate change.

Many of us for weeks have been saying if the model predictions were accurate, we should have been over run the hospitals long before now....



posted on Mar, 26 2020 @ 03:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated
Probably shared same modeling assumptions with climate change scientists....

Too many people never want to question the data or modeling assumptions. We see this all the time when discussing climate change.

Many of us for weeks have been saying if the model predictions were accurate, we should have been over run the hospitals long before now....



And some people want to live in denial despite all the evidence to the contrary.
edit on 26-3-2020 by ScepticScot because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2020 @ 04:03 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical



we can just tell all of those people in hospitals in Italy and Spain that they can just go home because they are obviously not as sick as they (or the doctors) think they are and that hospitals and medical staff in New York can stand down?


Nice spin.

NO ONE is implying that, just YOU.

This thread is about an epidemiologist who drastically revised his data.

Did you miss where an Oxford epidemiologist Sunetra Gupta stated that the Imperial College London model was flawed from the beginning?

No person, or article that I linked is downplaying the seriousness of this virus, or the fact that many have died.



edit on 3/26/2020 by shawmanfromny because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2020 @ 04:05 PM
link   
Yeah I've had a lot of doubts about his model since the beginning, which every other model seems to be based off of, and which seems to have triggered most of the fear and panic that we've seen. And just to be clear, I'm not doubting the seriousness of it or the measures we're taking. Obviously we've seen it kill thousands. But there's a big difference between killing a few thousand and killing a few million, and that's where I had trouble understanding. I understand how exponential increasing works, that if you keep doubling and doubling every few days then before you know it, you're well into the millions. But it seems to reach a ceiling well before it gets anywhere near that point. Maybe it's because of all the precautions, social distancing, etc, I really don't know. But seeing him revise the numbers by this much really makes me wonder.



posted on Mar, 26 2020 @ 04:32 PM
link   

This is NOT the Mud Pit!!!
This is about the COVID-19 models, not your favorite politics!!!!



Please read these threads.
No Political Trolling.....either in words or images.
Is There Civilization Without Civility



You are responsible for your own posts.....those who ignore that responsibility will face mod actions.


and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!



posted on Mar, 26 2020 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Edumakated
Probably shared same modeling assumptions with climate change scientists....

Too many people never want to question the data or modeling assumptions. We see this all the time when discussing climate change.

Many of us for weeks have been saying if the model predictions were accurate, we should have been over run the hospitals long before now....



And some people want to live in denial despite all the evidence to the contrary.


Yes. You are well versed at doing that....



posted on Mar, 26 2020 @ 04:45 PM
link   
a reply to: shawmanfromny

Wonderful post! It's obvious that that model was intentionally designed to cause panic and Hysteria.

Mission accomplished.



posted on Mar, 26 2020 @ 05:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Edumakated
Probably shared same modeling assumptions with climate change scientists....

Too many people never want to question the data or modeling assumptions. We see this all the time when discussing climate change.

Many of us for weeks have been saying if the model predictions were accurate, we should have been over run the hospitals long before now....



And some people want to live in denial despite all the evidence to the contrary.


Yes. You are well versed at doing that....


Almost 5,000 deaths already in Lombardy despite the control measures in place. The reality seems fairly clear.



posted on Mar, 26 2020 @ 05:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: shawmanfromny

Wonderful post! It's obvious that that model was intentionally designed to cause panic and Hysteria.

Mission accomplished.


Because....



new topics

top topics



 
30
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join