Home Contact Us

ADVERTISEMENT

Of course. The situation changed when people acted on the prediction. - Isn't that obvious? sm

Posted: Mar 27th, 2020 - 10:16 am In Reply to: The Scientist Whose Doomsday Pandemic Model Predicted Armageddon - Just Walked Back The Apocalyptic

It should be obvious that the models aren't accurate anymore, the situation changed. The epicenters in the US (NY, WA, and CA) went into lockdown. The rest of the country started taking it seriously. This should be obvious.

Unfortunately, that's not the world we live in now. Our world is full of "you said this based on the information available at the time and you were WRONG!" Now you're discredited. Now you're a fool. We never want to hear from you again. That's not how we should treat people.

The total numbers may be wrong. It's not likely that 20 million Americans will die. It's also not likely that all US hospitals will have overflow.

However, southern states are already complaining about running out of beds. New York City is also having issues.

I'll spare you the detailed math on NYC, but the next few days (and the first week in April) is going to be critical for them. They've had a 20% hospitalization rate for confirmed cases. Under normal circumstances they'd run out of beds when they hit the 43,000 confirmed cases mark. Confirmed cases are doubling every 4 days. They're at 23,000 now according to JHU.

The question is can we contain the hospital overflow issues to a few locations?

ADVERTISEMENT

Post A Reply Reply By Email Options

Use Rich Text Editor with Full Options CLOSE

Edit/Delete Message

Report this message

Complete Discussion Below: (

marks the location of current message within thread)

The Scientist Whose Doomsday Pandemic Model Predicted Armageddon - Just Walked Back The Apocalyptic (Views: 434, 2020-03-27, 5:35 am)
- How much additional financial hardship to millions di - this fool cause? So now it's oops? (Views: 130, 2020-03-27, 5:37 am)
  - The worst offender is the COVID Act Now site which - displays dire graphs but provides (Views: 147, 2020-03-27, 5:44 am)
- This is why I've never trusted computer models. Too - much R-naughts and other things (Views: 149, 2020-03-27, 5:41 am)
- Did the MSM report this yet? - ? (Views: 171, 2020-03-27, 5:47 am)
- Even WHO data is full of errors according to Oxford - based groups. (Views: 148, 2020-03-27, 6:21 am)
- Of course. The situation changed when people acted on the prediction. - Isn't that obvious? sm