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

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Willtell

Here is what Ferguson actually did. (Read the twitter thread for more)

1/4 - I think it would be helpful if I cleared up some confusion that has emerged in recent days. Some have interpreted my evidence to a UK parliamentary committee as indicating we have substantially revised our assessments of the potential mortality impact of COVID-19.

2/4 - This is not the case. Indeed, if anything, our latest estimates suggest that the virus is slightly more transmissible than we previously thought. Our lethality estimates remain unchanged.

twitter.com...

Thank you!

So if we now take this doctors word.

he is claiming 500000 people would die if the UK didnt take these measures.

And if they do, only 20000 will die?

Im sorry but that is absurd.

There is no projections I have seen from anybody else, nor does it even remotely make sense to a layman, that without some sort of cure, mere social distancing would be so successful only 4 percent of the people projected would die./

In fact most medical professionals are saying these sort of social distancing procedures will not even lead to that many less people getting the virus, but will flatten the curve.

This claim to me is not different than "We have to pass the patriot act, if we do, you will all be safe, if not terrorists will kill millions of us"

The governments of the UK and US exploited this crisis to redistribute trillions of dollars and have a huge power grab, and at least in the case of the US, refused to give thier models, say what their threshold for this sort of action was, say how many people their policies would save or costs, etc.

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
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.

That is blatantly false.

The updates to the models are assuming that this thing has already spread, so the lockdowns didn't really do anything to stop it.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
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.

That is blatantly false.

The updates to the models are assuming that this thing [has already spread, so the lockdowns didn't really do anything to stop it.

This is why we should have demanded answers to questions before we allowed the governments to take away these rights and collapse the economy and spend trillions.

Instead people blindly gave into fear, and gave these governments a blank check based on garbage numbers

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
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.

That is blatantly false.

The updates to the models are assuming that this thing [has already spread, so the lockdowns didn't really do anything to stop it.

Not according to the actual doctor who did the did the research .

Maybe I'm missing something but faster transmission of the virus without it altering projected mortality rates doesn't seem like a net positive to me.

originally posted by: Grambler
This is why we should have demanded answers to questions before we allowed the governments to take away these rights and collapse the economy and spend trillions.

Instead people blindly gave into fear, and gave these governments a blank check based on garbage numbers

Couldn't agree more...

originally posted by: Hefficide

Maybe I'm missing something but faster transmission of the virus without it altering projected mortality rates doesn't seem like a net positive to me.

But it does alter it... dramatically.

If there are ten times as many people infected than the current 'confirmed cases' show, then that means the CFR is reduced by the same factor (10) - so, instead of a 1.5% CFR in the USA, we have 0.15%.

Personally, I think there are far more than just 10 times as many infected - it is likely more like 20-50 times.

a reply to: tanstaafl

I could be missing it but that's not what I"m reading. What I'm gathering is that the projections have been revised for a few factors ( rate of transmission, factoring in mitigation measures now taken and they're debating the concept of herd immunity, which will require further studies.

This is what Birx had to say:

I think it would be helpful if I cleared up some confusion that has emerged in recent days. Some have interpreted my evidence to a UK parliamentary committee as indicating we have substantially revised our assessments of the potential mortality impact of COVID-19. This is not the case. Indeed, if anything, our latest estimates suggest that the virus is slightly more transmissible than we previously thought. Our lethality estimates remain unchanged. My evidence to Parliament referred to the deaths we assess might occur in the UK in the presence of the very intensive social distancing and other public health interventions now in place. Without those controls, our assessment remains that the UK would see the scale of deaths reported in our study (namely, up to approximately 500 thousand).

Dailywire

And the Tweets from Ferguson:



Which leaves me wondering because it appears people are using statements that mitigation works to argue against mitigation.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Hefficide

Maybe I'm missing something but faster transmission of the virus without it altering projected mortality rates doesn't seem like a net positive to me.

But it does alter it... dramatically.

If there are ten times as many people infected than the current 'confirmed cases' show, then that means the CFR is reduced by the same factor (10) - so, instead of a 1.5% CFR in the USA, we have 0.15%.

Personally, I think there are far more than just 10 times as many infected - it is likely more like 20-50 times.

Now keep in mind dr. birx, one of gthe lead doctors ion trumps team, just said yesterday we see no proof whatsoever that 20% of people will be infected.

We are -- there is enough data of the real experience with the coronavirus on the ground to really make these predictions much more sound. So when people start talking about 20% of a population getting infected, it's very scary, but we don't have data that matches that based on our experience.

www.realclearpolitics.com...

So a mortality rate possobly at .15 percent, with not ecen 20 percent of the population being infected.

That puts deaths around a still tragic 50000, give or take.

The CDC has predicted as of Match 14 the flu has killed up to 59000 this year alone.

If these numbers hold true, we were lied to. This was a power grab of epic proportions, redistributing trillions of dollars, collapsing the econonmy, taking away people basic rights

And all because most people gave into fear and didnt demand answers to basic questions before begging the government tot take these actions.

a reply to: Hefficide

Again, there is no other professional doctor anywhere I see suggesting that mitigation, not a cure, can result in a whopping 96% reduction in deaths.

That is an absurd statement, and everyone knows it.

a reply to: Grambler

I sourced the actual statements from the actual people referenced in the articles the OP is based upon. Where you pulled 96% from I have no idea nor do I understand the relevance.

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: Grambler

I sourced the actual statements from the actual people referenced in the articles the OP is based upon. Where you pulled 96% from I have no idea nor do I understand the relevance.

500 thousand predicted dead.

with UKs actions, only 20 thousand dead (says this doctor)

That is 96 percent less dead with the governments policies, which dont include a cure.

That is absurd

a reply to: Grambler

It's a big difference but precautionary and prophylactic measures tend to have that effect. Safe sex works the same way.

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: Grambler

It's a big difference but precautionary and prophylactic measures tend to have that effect. Safe sex works the same way.

Safe sex is hardly the same thing. I have seen doctor after doctor say there is no way to contain this virus that much, only to flatten the curve.

But fine, we have a more analogous disease we can look at, the flu.

According to the cdc, as high as 59000 people as of march 14 died of the common flu in the US.

Surely if the social distancing polices could prevent 96percent of corona virus, which is more infectious than the flu we are told, then these same measures would have prevented at least as high of a percent of flu deaths.

Yet numbers havent dramatically dropped like we would expect.

www.cdc.gov...

How can that be if dr fergusons numbers are accurate?

a reply to: Grambler

Because the virus has a long incubation period and also a long period of illness associated with it.

As cold as it is, right now there are people walking and carrying it who don't know they're dead yet.

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: Grambler

Because the virus has a long incubation period and also a long period of illness associated with it.

As cold as it is, right now there are people walking and carrying it who don't know they're dead yet.

Ok if that is true, how can dr ferguson predict a 96 percent reduction in deaths.

What you seem to be suggesting, which would make sense, is that the social distancing policies are too late to have the sort of impact dr ferguson is talking about, because so many peole already have the disease and dont know it, therefore transmission would have made it to most (or many many) people.

Perhaps I could believe dr fergusons prediction of social distancing lowering deaths by 96 poercent had the policy began before the outbreak began.

But it didnt.

This shows t me either ferguson is wrong that it will lead to only 20000 deaths, or whats most likely, fergusons prediction 500000 would die was extremely overblown.

a reply to: Grambler

My guess would be that the isolation and social distancing frees up medical resources that would otherwise be expended in their absence that, in turn, improves the prognoses of those already infected.

Even with mitigation the predicted deaths is a horrifying number.

a reply to: Hefficide
Without deaths from diseases or wars, mankind would have (most likely) become extinct long ago.

a reply to: carewemust

So you're saying that you've shifted from "It's a hoax" to "It's not that bad" to "It's OK that a lot of people will die, it's for the greater good"?

I'm having a difficult time keeping track.