COVID-19 Megathread 3: Third time's a charm

[Green Line]

Dr. Birx dismisses doomsday predictions.  We're told to listen to the experts.  I'll listen to her.  Some people on here need to listen to this.

The alarmist report from Imperial College has been revised way down.  20,000 dead in UK is their newest prediction, down for hundreds of thousands.

Wow, 20,000 dead in the UK is equivalent to 100,000 dead here in the United States.  Is that not doomsday?

Not really.

[emailking]

The alarmist report from Imperial College has been revised way down.  20,000 dead in UK is their newest prediction, down for hundreds of thousands.

Because of the steps that have been taken.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

for the fans of testing and not lock down
in US you are around 330 millions, to 2 tests a week, are 660 millions of tests a week at 30 $ each are around 20 billion at week,
ever if there is a capability to do 100 million of tests a day...

IDK what the max. capability for testing is, but:

1) This is an argument for why the "reemergence" phase after social distancing should be slow - slow the demand for tests. If you let people re-enter public spaces slowly then you have fewer tests to give and, for the people you are testing, you (at first) have high confidence that they won't be infected.
2) Do targeted testing (related to point 1, because targeted testing is easier if the number of people re-entering public spaces at a given time is small). You are also more likely to catch positive cases if you use a branching test policy ("breadth-first search" if you're into algorithms) where you test people in contact with confirmed cases. You can use some clever sampling to try to get the highest yield of positive cases if you are facing a shortage of tests.

I also wonder if, as the number of positive cases grows, the number of recovered (and therefore plausibly immune) people would grow reducing the number of people that would need to be tested. Likewise if people under a certain age are less likely to acquire the virus then they also wouldn't need testing.

[Green Line]

The alarmist report from Imperial College has been revised way down.  20,000 dead in UK is their newest prediction, down for hundreds of thousands.

Because of the steps that have been taken.

UK imposed a lockdown 2 days ago...

[Podgy the Bear]

Dr. Birx dismisses doomsday predictions.  We're told to listen to the experts.  I'll listen to her.  Some people on here need to listen to this.

The alarmist report from Imperial College has been revised way down.  20,000 dead in UK is their newest prediction, down for hundreds of thousands.

Wow, 20,000 dead in the UK is equivalent to 100,000 dead here in the United States.  Is that not doomsday?

Not really.

Truly stupid thinking.  100,000 dead will mean hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of serious post-COVID 19 complications of those that survive.  Forget the astronomical costs--the physical and emotional trauma will be enormous.

[Green Line]

Dr. Birx dismisses doomsday predictions.  We're told to listen to the experts.  I'll listen to her.  Some people on here need to listen to this.

The alarmist report from Imperial College has been revised way down.  20,000 dead in UK is their newest prediction, down for hundreds of thousands.

Wow, 20,000 dead in the UK is equivalent to 100,000 dead here in the United States.  Is that not doomsday?

Not really.

Truly stupid thinking.  100,000 dead will mean hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of serious post-COVID 19 complications of those that survive.  Forget the astronomical costs--the physical and emotional trauma will be enormous.

The goal posts are already moving.

[We Live in Black and White]

Dr. Birx dismisses doomsday predictions.  We're told to listen to the experts.  I'll listen to her.  Some people on here need to listen to this.

The alarmist report from Imperial College has been revised way down.  20,000 dead in UK is their newest prediction, down for hundreds of thousands.

Wow, 20,000 dead in the UK is equivalent to 100,000 dead here in the United States.  Is that not doomsday?

Not really.

Truly stupid thinking.  100,000 dead will mean hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of serious post-COVID 19 complications of those that survive.  Forget the astronomical costs--the physical and emotional trauma will be enormous.

The goal posts are already moving.

How many lives lost is acceptable to you, perchance?

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

The alarmist report from Imperial College has been revised way down.  20,000 dead in UK is their newest prediction, down for hundreds of thousands.

Because of the steps that have been taken.

UK imposed a lockdown 2 days ago...

Dawg, the author himself acknowledged that it was due to the social controls (which many people and localities adopted before the lockdown)

https://twitter.com/neil_ferguson/status/1243294819952230402

Even the original study acknowledged that with social control and low-enough transmission that only 20K cases was plausible.



(h/t this tweet: https://twitter.com/zackbeauchamp/status/1243260980999708672/photo/1)

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

for the fans of testing and not lock down
in US you are around 330 millions, to 2 tests a week, are 660 millions of tests a week at 30 $ each are around 20 billion at week,
ever if there is a capability to do 100 million of tests a day...

We’re about to pass a $2 Trillion bailout package.  $20 billion for testing everyone sounds trivial.

[brucejoel99]

The alarmist report from Imperial College has been revised way down.  20,000 dead in UK is their newest prediction, down for hundreds of thousands.

Because of the steps that have been taken.

UK imposed a lockdown 2 days ago...

Dawg, the author himself acknowledged that it was due to the social controls (which many people and localities adopted before the lockdown)

https://twitter.com/neil_ferguson/status/1243294819952230402

Even the original study acknowledged that with social control and low-enough transmission that only 20K cases was plausible.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EUDzNxUWsAQ8Eah.png

(h/t this tweet: https://twitter.com/zackbeauchamp/status/1243260980999708672/photo/1)

What!? Green Line, listening to facts!? HAHAHAHAHA, laughable.

[GP270watch]

NYC just had more EMS calls than any day since 9/11. They're setting up makeshift morgues again something not done since 9/11.

[Green Line]

The alarmist report from Imperial College has been revised way down.  20,000 dead in UK is their newest prediction, down for hundreds of thousands.

Because of the steps that have been taken.

UK imposed a lockdown 2 days ago...

Dawg, the author himself acknowledged that it was due to the social controls (which many people and localities adopted before the lockdown)

Not true at all.  The author is trying to cover his behind.  The prediction of 20,000 was based solely on government enforced lockdowns.  The softer social controls were estimated to reduce it to about 260,000.  The nationwide lockdown only went into effect 2 days ago.

Their initial model was wrong.

Don't believe me, listen to Birx.  The inital models were overzealous.

[emailking]

The alarmist report from Imperial College has been revised way down.  20,000 dead in UK is their newest prediction, down for hundreds of thousands.

Because of the steps that have been taken.

UK imposed a lockdown 2 days ago...

And it's going to last for 3 weeks.

[brucejoel99]

The alarmist report from Imperial College has been revised way down.  20,000 dead in UK is their newest prediction, down for hundreds of thousands.

Because of the steps that have been taken.

UK imposed a lockdown 2 days ago...

Dawg, the author himself acknowledged that it was due to the social controls (which many people and localities adopted before the lockdown)

Not true at all.  The author is trying to cover his behind.  The prediction of 20,000 was based solely on government enforced lockdowns.  The softer social controls were estimated to reduce it to about 260,000.  The nationwide lockdown only went into effect 2 days ago.

Their initial model was wrong.

Don't believe me, listen to Birx.  The inital models were overzealous.

Dude, there's literally a picture from the original study (again, the original study) linked in peenie_weenie's comment that proves "the original study acknowledged that with social control and low-enough transmission that only 20K cases was plausible." Do you not understand how, y'know, facts & evidence work? Seriously, just how f**king blinding is your ignorance?

Or is it that you're just a troll?

[It’s so Joever]

The alarmist report from Imperial College has been revised way down.  20,000 dead in UK is their newest prediction, down for hundreds of thousands.

Because of the steps that have been taken.

UK imposed a lockdown 2 days ago...

Great, let’s impose one here.

[Arizona Iced Tea]

It's going to get worse before it gets better. About 10k+ people will die in the USA from this.

[It’s so Joever]

It's going to get worse before it gets better. About 10k+ people will die in the USA from this.

It will be anywhere from 100,000 to 800,000.

[Green Line]

The alarmist report from Imperial College has been revised way down.  20,000 dead in UK is their newest prediction, down for hundreds of thousands.

Because of the steps that have been taken.

UK imposed a lockdown 2 days ago...

Dawg, the author himself acknowledged that it was due to the social controls (which many people and localities adopted before the lockdown)

Not true at all.  The author is trying to cover his behind.  The prediction of 20,000 was based solely on government enforced lockdowns.  The softer social controls were estimated to reduce it to about 260,000.  The nationwide lockdown only went into effect 2 days ago.

Their initial model was wrong.

Don't believe me, listen to Birx.  The inital models were overzealous.

Dude, there's literally a picture from the original study (again, the original study) linked in peenie_weenie's comment that proves "the original study acknowledged that with social control and low-enough transmission that only 20K cases was plausible." Do you not understand how, y'know, facts & evidence work? Seriously, just how f**king blinding is your ignorance?

Or is it that you're just a troll?

Damn, you're a rude person.  I won't talk to you that way though, don't worry.

I posted this saying that the alarmist predictions on here are wrong.  I should have said that their report was over pessimistic, not that it was wrong, I said that their prediction had been revised down, which it WAS.  The UK is two days into a nationwide lockdown and they're already now stating that 20,000 is the more likely number.  That was not the case just days ago, and it certainly was not the number that anyone was talking about.  I'm posting good news on here.  The fact that it triggers so many is very telling.

Dr. Birx agreeds with me, so I'm not too concerned about what you think.

"The predictions of the models don't match the reality on the ground in either China, South Korea, or Italy."  Her words.  Not mine.  Call her names.

[brucejoel99]

The alarmist report from Imperial College has been revised way down.  20,000 dead in UK is their newest prediction, down for hundreds of thousands.

Because of the steps that have been taken.

UK imposed a lockdown 2 days ago...

Dawg, the author himself acknowledged that it was due to the social controls (which many people and localities adopted before the lockdown)

Not true at all.  The author is trying to cover his behind.  The prediction of 20,000 was based solely on government enforced lockdowns.  The softer social controls were estimated to reduce it to about 260,000.  The nationwide lockdown only went into effect 2 days ago.

Their initial model was wrong.

Don't believe me, listen to Birx.  The inital models were overzealous.

Dude, there's literally a picture from the original study (again, the original study) linked in peenie_weenie's comment that proves "the original study acknowledged that with social control and low-enough transmission that only 20K cases was plausible." Do you not understand how, y'know, facts & evidence work? Seriously, just how f**king blinding is your ignorance?

Or is it that you're just a troll?

Damn, you're a rude person.  I won't talk to you that way though, don't worry.

I posted this saying that the alarmist predictions on here are wrong.  I should have said that their report was over pessimistic, not that it was wrong, I said that their prediction had been revised down, which it WAS.  The UK is two days into a nationwide lockdown and they're already now stating that 20,000 is the more likely number.  That was not the case just days ago, and it certainly was not the number that anyone was talking about.  I'm posting good news on here.  The fact that it triggers so many is very telling.

Dr. Birx agreeds with me, so I'm not too concerned about what you think.

Being treated respectfully is a privilege that you lost the right to be entitled to with your sharing of misinformation & flat-out lies.

The prediction wasn't "revised down" because an original prediction, by definition, can't be "revised down" if the original prediction literally accounts for potential variables (which we have shown you how, in this case, the original prediction did: by showing that 20K cases was a plausible number through social control & low-enough transmission, which is literally what we've now seen occur. Again, 20K was a number that people - this very study that we're showing you, in fact - were indeed talking about with the caveat that it was only plausible with social control & low-enough transmission, which - again - is now what we've seen).

You're not posting "good news." You're posting falsehoods. Please refrain from doing so with immediate effect.

[Green Line]

The alarmist report from Imperial College has been revised way down.  20,000 dead in UK is their newest prediction, down for hundreds of thousands.

Because of the steps that have been taken.

UK imposed a lockdown 2 days ago...

Dawg, the author himself acknowledged that it was due to the social controls (which many people and localities adopted before the lockdown)

Not true at all.  The author is trying to cover his behind.  The prediction of 20,000 was based solely on government enforced lockdowns.  The softer social controls were estimated to reduce it to about 260,000.  The nationwide lockdown only went into effect 2 days ago.

Their initial model was wrong.

Don't believe me, listen to Birx.  The inital models were overzealous.

Dude, there's literally a picture from the original study (again, the original study) linked in peenie_weenie's comment that proves "the original study acknowledged that with social control and low-enough transmission that only 20K cases was plausible." Do you not understand how, y'know, facts & evidence work? Seriously, just how f**king blinding is your ignorance?

Or is it that you're just a troll?

Damn, you're a rude person.  I won't talk to you that way though, don't worry.

I posted this saying that the alarmist predictions on here are wrong.  I should have said that their report was over pessimistic, not that it was wrong, I said that their prediction had been revised down, which it WAS.  The UK is two days into a nationwide lockdown and they're already now stating that 20,000 is the more likely number.  That was not the case just days ago, and it certainly was not the number that anyone was talking about.  I'm posting good news on here.  The fact that it triggers so many is very telling.

Dr. Birx agreeds with me, so I'm not too concerned about what you think.

Being treated respectfully is a privilege that you lost the right to be entitled to with your sharing of misinformation & flat-out lies.

The prediction wasn't "revised down" because an original prediction, by definition, can't be "revised down" if the original prediction literally accounts for potential variables (which we have shown you how, in this case, the original prediction did: by showing that 20K cases was a plausible number through social control & low-enough transmission, which is literally what we've now seen occur. Again, 20K was a number that people - this very study that we're showing you, in fact - were indeed talking about with the caveat that it was only plausible with social control & low-enough transmission, which - again - is now what we've seen).

You're not posting "good news." You're posting falsehoods. Please refrain from doing so with immediate effect.

Dr. Birx:  "The predictions of the models don't match the reality on the ground in either China, South Korea, or Italy."

Please tell her to stop spreading falsehoods, not me.  She specifically addresses the issue of trasmission in her comments.  They had their transmission numbers completely wrong.

Haven't lied once.  The visceral reaction you're having to someone disagreeing with you is not good.  Take it down a notch.

[GoTfan]

It's going to get worse before it gets better. About 10k+ people will die in the USA from this.

It will be anywhere from 100,000 to 800,000.

University of Washington is saying 81,000, and they've been pretty on the money so far.

[brucejoel99]

The alarmist report from Imperial College has been revised way down.  20,000 dead in UK is their newest prediction, down for hundreds of thousands.

Because of the steps that have been taken.

UK imposed a lockdown 2 days ago...

Dawg, the author himself acknowledged that it was due to the social controls (which many people and localities adopted before the lockdown)

Not true at all.  The author is trying to cover his behind.  The prediction of 20,000 was based solely on government enforced lockdowns.  The softer social controls were estimated to reduce it to about 260,000.  The nationwide lockdown only went into effect 2 days ago.

Their initial model was wrong.

Don't believe me, listen to Birx.  The inital models were overzealous.

Dude, there's literally a picture from the original study (again, the original study) linked in peenie_weenie's comment that proves "the original study acknowledged that with social control and low-enough transmission that only 20K cases was plausible." Do you not understand how, y'know, facts & evidence work? Seriously, just how f**king blinding is your ignorance?

Or is it that you're just a troll?

Damn, you're a rude person.  I won't talk to you that way though, don't worry.

I posted this saying that the alarmist predictions on here are wrong.  I should have said that their report was over pessimistic, not that it was wrong, I said that their prediction had been revised down, which it WAS.  The UK is two days into a nationwide lockdown and they're already now stating that 20,000 is the more likely number.  That was not the case just days ago, and it certainly was not the number that anyone was talking about.  I'm posting good news on here.  The fact that it triggers so many is very telling.

Dr. Birx agreeds with me, so I'm not too concerned about what you think.

Being treated respectfully is a privilege that you lost the right to be entitled to with your sharing of misinformation & flat-out lies.

The prediction wasn't "revised down" because an original prediction, by definition, can't be "revised down" if the original prediction literally accounts for potential variables (which we have shown you how, in this case, the original prediction did: by showing that 20K cases was a plausible number through social control & low-enough transmission, which is literally what we've now seen occur. Again, 20K was a number that people - this very study that we're showing you, in fact - were indeed talking about with the caveat that it was only plausible with social control & low-enough transmission, which - again - is now what we've seen).

You're not posting "good news." You're posting falsehoods. Please refrain from doing so with immediate effect.

Dr. Birx:  "The predictions of the models don't match the reality on the ground in either China, South Korea, or Italy."

Please tell her to stop spreading falsehoods, not me.  She specifically addresses the issue of trasmission in her comments.  They had their transmission numbers completely wrong.

Haven't lied once.  The visceral reaction you're having to someone disagreeing with you is not good.  Take it down a notch.

I'm not referring to her comments. Her comments weren't referring to how the specific study which everybody is referring to in this conversation actually accounted for multiple potential variables &, on the basis thereof, provided different sets of plausible numbers depending on the severity (or lack thereof) of the said variables.

I'm referring to your comments, & it was your comments that wrongly chose to misstate plain facts, even after said facts had been more than clearly pointed out & illustrated to you. The visceral incomprehension with which you seem to treat facts is not good. Please acquire the ability to seek & gain knowledge.

[Green Line]

The alarmist report from Imperial College has been revised way down.  20,000 dead in UK is their newest prediction, down for hundreds of thousands.

Because of the steps that have been taken.

UK imposed a lockdown 2 days ago...

Dawg, the author himself acknowledged that it was due to the social controls (which many people and localities adopted before the lockdown)

Not true at all.  The author is trying to cover his behind.  The prediction of 20,000 was based solely on government enforced lockdowns.  The softer social controls were estimated to reduce it to about 260,000.  The nationwide lockdown only went into effect 2 days ago.

Their initial model was wrong.

Don't believe me, listen to Birx.  The inital models were overzealous.

Dude, there's literally a picture from the original study (again, the original study) linked in peenie_weenie's comment that proves "the original study acknowledged that with social control and low-enough transmission that only 20K cases was plausible." Do you not understand how, y'know, facts & evidence work? Seriously, just how f**king blinding is your ignorance?

Or is it that you're just a troll?

Damn, you're a rude person.  I won't talk to you that way though, don't worry.

I posted this saying that the alarmist predictions on here are wrong.  I should have said that their report was over pessimistic, not that it was wrong, I said that their prediction had been revised down, which it WAS.  The UK is two days into a nationwide lockdown and they're already now stating that 20,000 is the more likely number.  That was not the case just days ago, and it certainly was not the number that anyone was talking about.  I'm posting good news on here.  The fact that it triggers so many is very telling.

Dr. Birx agreeds with me, so I'm not too concerned about what you think.

Being treated respectfully is a privilege that you lost the right to be entitled to with your sharing of misinformation & flat-out lies.

The prediction wasn't "revised down" because an original prediction, by definition, can't be "revised down" if the original prediction literally accounts for potential variables (which we have shown you how, in this case, the original prediction did: by showing that 20K cases was a plausible number through social control & low-enough transmission, which is literally what we've now seen occur. Again, 20K was a number that people - this very study that we're showing you, in fact - were indeed talking about with the caveat that it was only plausible with social control & low-enough transmission, which - again - is now what we've seen).

You're not posting "good news." You're posting falsehoods. Please refrain from doing so with immediate effect.

Dr. Birx:  "The predictions of the models don't match the reality on the ground in either China, South Korea, or Italy."

Please tell her to stop spreading falsehoods, not me.  She specifically addresses the issue of trasmission in her comments.  They had their transmission numbers completely wrong.

Haven't lied once.  The visceral reaction you're having to someone disagreeing with you is not good.  Take it down a notch.

I'm not referring to her comments. Her comments weren't referring to how the specific study which everybody is referring to in this conversation actually accounted for multiple potential variables &, on the basis thereof, provided different sets of plausible numbers depending on the severity (or lack thereof) of the said variables.

I'm referring to your comments, & it was your comments that wrongly chose to misstate plain facts, even after said facts had been more than clearly pointed out & illustrated to you. The visceral incomprehension with which you seem to treat facts is not good. Please acquire the ability to seek & gain knowledge.

Her comments were 1000% referring to this study.  If you can't grasp this, you should take a look in the mirror when making those comments directed at me.  You haven't refuted a single thing I've said, just resorted to personal attacks, which is telling.

[brucejoel99]

The alarmist report from Imperial College has been revised way down.  20,000 dead in UK is their newest prediction, down for hundreds of thousands.

Because of the steps that have been taken.

UK imposed a lockdown 2 days ago...

Dawg, the author himself acknowledged that it was due to the social controls (which many people and localities adopted before the lockdown)

Not true at all.  The author is trying to cover his behind.  The prediction of 20,000 was based solely on government enforced lockdowns.  The softer social controls were estimated to reduce it to about 260,000.  The nationwide lockdown only went into effect 2 days ago.

Their initial model was wrong.

Don't believe me, listen to Birx.  The inital models were overzealous.

Dude, there's literally a picture from the original study (again, the original study) linked in peenie_weenie's comment that proves "the original study acknowledged that with social control and low-enough transmission that only 20K cases was plausible." Do you not understand how, y'know, facts & evidence work? Seriously, just how f**king blinding is your ignorance?

Or is it that you're just a troll?

Damn, you're a rude person.  I won't talk to you that way though, don't worry.

I posted this saying that the alarmist predictions on here are wrong.  I should have said that their report was over pessimistic, not that it was wrong, I said that their prediction had been revised down, which it WAS.  The UK is two days into a nationwide lockdown and they're already now stating that 20,000 is the more likely number.  That was not the case just days ago, and it certainly was not the number that anyone was talking about.  I'm posting good news on here.  The fact that it triggers so many is very telling.

Dr. Birx agreeds with me, so I'm not too concerned about what you think.

Being treated respectfully is a privilege that you lost the right to be entitled to with your sharing of misinformation & flat-out lies.

The prediction wasn't "revised down" because an original prediction, by definition, can't be "revised down" if the original prediction literally accounts for potential variables (which we have shown you how, in this case, the original prediction did: by showing that 20K cases was a plausible number through social control & low-enough transmission, which is literally what we've now seen occur. Again, 20K was a number that people - this very study that we're showing you, in fact - were indeed talking about with the caveat that it was only plausible with social control & low-enough transmission, which - again - is now what we've seen).

You're not posting "good news." You're posting falsehoods. Please refrain from doing so with immediate effect.

Dr. Birx:  "The predictions of the models don't match the reality on the ground in either China, South Korea, or Italy."

Please tell her to stop spreading falsehoods, not me.  She specifically addresses the issue of trasmission in her comments.  They had their transmission numbers completely wrong.

Haven't lied once.  The visceral reaction you're having to someone disagreeing with you is not good.  Take it down a notch.

I'm not referring to her comments. Her comments weren't referring to how the specific study which everybody is referring to in this conversation actually accounted for multiple potential variables &, on the basis thereof, provided different sets of plausible numbers depending on the severity (or lack thereof) of the said variables.

I'm referring to your comments, & it was your comments that wrongly chose to misstate plain facts, even after said facts had been more than clearly pointed out & illustrated to you. The visceral incomprehension with which you seem to treat facts is not good. Please acquire the ability to seek & gain knowledge.

Her comments were 1000% referring to this study.  If you can't grasp this, you should take a look in the mirror when making those comments directed at me.  You haven't refuted a single thing I've said, just resorted to personal attacks, which is telling.

The factual evidence that both myself & other posters before me brought up (& hell, even the literal definition of "revised down") refuted you time & time again. Ugh, whatever. I'm done flattering the ignorant. Onto ignore you go!

[Green Line]

The alarmist report from Imperial College has been revised way down.  20,000 dead in UK is their newest prediction, down for hundreds of thousands.

Because of the steps that have been taken.

UK imposed a lockdown 2 days ago...

Dawg, the author himself acknowledged that it was due to the social controls (which many people and localities adopted before the lockdown)

Not true at all.  The author is trying to cover his behind.  The prediction of 20,000 was based solely on government enforced lockdowns.  The softer social controls were estimated to reduce it to about 260,000.  The nationwide lockdown only went into effect 2 days ago.

Their initial model was wrong.

Don't believe me, listen to Birx.  The inital models were overzealous.

Dude, there's literally a picture from the original study (again, the original study) linked in peenie_weenie's comment that proves "the original study acknowledged that with social control and low-enough transmission that only 20K cases was plausible." Do you not understand how, y'know, facts & evidence work? Seriously, just how f**king blinding is your ignorance?

Or is it that you're just a troll?

Damn, you're a rude person.  I won't talk to you that way though, don't worry.

I posted this saying that the alarmist predictions on here are wrong.  I should have said that their report was over pessimistic, not that it was wrong, I said that their prediction had been revised down, which it WAS.  The UK is two days into a nationwide lockdown and they're already now stating that 20,000 is the more likely number.  That was not the case just days ago, and it certainly was not the number that anyone was talking about.  I'm posting good news on here.  The fact that it triggers so many is very telling.

Dr. Birx agreeds with me, so I'm not too concerned about what you think.

Being treated respectfully is a privilege that you lost the right to be entitled to with your sharing of misinformation & flat-out lies.

The prediction wasn't "revised down" because an original prediction, by definition, can't be "revised down" if the original prediction literally accounts for potential variables (which we have shown you how, in this case, the original prediction did: by showing that 20K cases was a plausible number through social control & low-enough transmission, which is literally what we've now seen occur. Again, 20K was a number that people - this very study that we're showing you, in fact - were indeed talking about with the caveat that it was only plausible with social control & low-enough transmission, which - again - is now what we've seen).

You're not posting "good news." You're posting falsehoods. Please refrain from doing so with immediate effect.

Dr. Birx:  "The predictions of the models don't match the reality on the ground in either China, South Korea, or Italy."

Please tell her to stop spreading falsehoods, not me.  She specifically addresses the issue of trasmission in her comments.  They had their transmission numbers completely wrong.

Haven't lied once.  The visceral reaction you're having to someone disagreeing with you is not good.  Take it down a notch.

I'm not referring to her comments. Her comments weren't referring to how the specific study which everybody is referring to in this conversation actually accounted for multiple potential variables &, on the basis thereof, provided different sets of plausible numbers depending on the severity (or lack thereof) of the said variables.

I'm referring to your comments, & it was your comments that wrongly chose to misstate plain facts, even after said facts had been more than clearly pointed out & illustrated to you. The visceral incomprehension with which you seem to treat facts is not good. Please acquire the ability to seek & gain knowledge.

Her comments were 1000% referring to this study.  If you can't grasp this, you should take a look in the mirror when making those comments directed at me.  You haven't refuted a single thing I've said, just resorted to personal attacks, which is telling.

The factual evidence that both myself & other posters before me brought up (& hell, even the literal definition of "revised down") refuted you time & time again. Ugh, whatever. I'm done flattering the ignorant. Onto ignore you go!

Lol.  You've not presented a single fact, and couldn't even defend your incorrect claim that she wasn't talking about the UK study referenced here.  Ignore me all you want.  Sometimes, burying your head in the sand is easier.