Unconfigured Ad Widget

**Blownmotor** · 03-29-2020, 12:58 AM

Well he's not wrong.....

**orangeglo** · 03-29-2020, 12:58 AM

They are two different estimates based on two different approaches to responding to SARS-CoV-2.

Do nothing: 500,000
Extreme response: 20,000

Amanda already walked back her article.

Correction: The original title of this article incorrectly suggested that Neil Ferguson stated his initial model was wrong. The article has been revised to make clear that he provided a downgraded projection given the new data and current mitigation steps. This article has also been updated to include Ferguson’s clarifying statement posted on Twitter on Thursday.

Epidemiologist Behind Highly-Cited Coronavirus Model Drastically Downgrades Projection

https://www.dailywire.com/news/epidemiologist-behind-highly-cited-coronavirus-model-admits-he-was-wrong-drastically-revises-model

Epidemiologist Neil Ferguson, who created the highly-cited Imperial College London coronavirus model, which has been cited by organizations like The New York Times and has been instrumental in governmental policy decision-making, offered a massively downgraded projection of the potential deathtoll 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. The model predicted far fewer deaths if lockdown measures — measures such as those taken by the British and American governments — were undertaken.After just one day of ordered lockdowns in the U.K., Ferguson is presenting drastically downgraded estimates, crediting lockdown measures, but also revealing that far more people likely have the virus than his team figured.Ferguson explained, “I should admit, we’ve always been sensitive in the analysis in the modeling to a variety of levels or values to those quantities. What we’ve been seeing, though, in Europe in the last week or two is a rate of growth of the epidemic which was faster than we expected from early data in China. And so we are revising our quotes, our central best estimate of the reproduction… something more, a little bit above of the order of three or a little bit above rather than about 2.5.” He added, “the current values are still within the wide range of values which modeling groups [unintelligible] we should have been looking at previously.”A higher rate of transmission than expected means that more people have the virus than previously expected; when the number of those with coronavirus is divided by the number of deaths, therefore, the mortality rate for the disease drops.Based on both those revised estimates and the lockdown measures taken by the British government, 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’s change of tune comes days after Oxford epidemiologist Sunetra Gupta criticized the professor’s model.“I am surprised that there has been such unqualified acceptance of the Imperial model,” Gupta said, according to the Financial Times.Professor Gupta led a team of researchers at Oxford in a modeling study which suggests that the virus has been invisibly spreading for at least a month earlier than suspected, concluding that as many as half of the people in the United Kingdom have already been infected by COVID-19.If her model is accurate, fewer than one in a thousand who’ve been infected with COVID-19 become sick enough to need hospitalization, leaving the vast majority with mild cases or free of symptoms.Ferguson did continue to argue that the Oxford model is too optimistic about death rates.UPDATE: Amid widespread reporting on his new death rate estimates — including by White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator Dr. Deborah Birx, who cited his 20,000 estimate during a press conference Thursday — Ferguson issued a statement on social media Thursday to “clear up confusion” about his revised estimates: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).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.— neil_ferguson (@neil_ferguson) March 26, 2020 Correction: The original title of this article incorrectly suggested that Neil Ferguson stated his initial model was wrong. The article has been revised to make clear that he provided a downgraded projection given the new data and current mitigation steps. This article has also been updated to include Ferguson’s clarifying statement posted on Twitter on Thursday.

**SW1917** · 03-29-2020, 1:41 AM

Notice it said "experts" but then it was ONE guys predictions

Lots of people acting like this was THE PREDICTION for the effects
There are a # of experts @ NIH & CDC and as far as I know they have not retracted their predictions

This guy had the worst case scenario and people act like everybody were using his #s so all the #s that are being used by OUR government to make decisions must be false FAIL!!!

**capo** · 03-29-2020, 6:36 AM

Originally posted by SW1917

Notice it said "experts" but then it was ONE guys predictions

Lots of people acting like this was THE PREDICTION for the effects
There are a # of experts @ NIH & CDC and as far as I know they have not retracted their predictions

This guy had the worst case scenario and people act like everybody were using his #s so all the #s that are being used by OUR government to make decisions must be false FAIL!!!

Yep, lots of people reaching for any information they can find to support their preconceptions and they're happy to ignore the facts if it fits the narrative. This particular fake news story has been posted and debunked several times already, perhaps OP is just particularly slow on the uptake of new information.

**Jeepergeo** · 03-29-2020, 6:56 AM

The folks that benefit from the hysteria have largely benefitted from the high numbers and panic and now need to walk the numbers back. They will be declaring heroism and stating "we acted out of an abundance of caution" when it reality thirst for power, greed, and control were their underlying goals.

Be prepared. Gavin Gruesome has seen the CO2 reductions from all the Stay at Home driving reductions. In the next year or two, expect a Stay at Home order to fight global warming with government hacks once again being declared essential and most taxpayers non essential.

**sd_shooter** · 03-29-2020, 8:18 AM

Originally posted by SW1917

Notice it said "experts" but then it was ONE guys predictions

Lots of people acting like this was THE PREDICTION for the effects
There are a # of experts @ NIH & CDC and as far as I know they have not retracted their predictions

This guy had the worst case scenario and people act like everybody were using his #s so all the #s that are being used by OUR government to make decisions must be false FAIL!!!

The point isn't that ONE expert was wrong, it's that the "prediction" provided by that expert was widely used to push the panic.

**capo** · 03-29-2020, 9:31 AM

Originally posted by sd_shooter

The point isn't that ONE expert was wrong, it's that the "prediction" provided by that expert was widely used to push the panic.

But the expert wasn't shown to be wrong. England and its people didn't carry on with business as usual so that modeled outcome isn't possibly going to occur. The paper showed multiple potential outcomes based on response, given the degree of proactive measures being taken the better outcomes now become more indicative of reality.

**_TomT_** · 03-29-2020, 9:40 AM

'experts'

*points to a guy on youtube

**JDoe** · 03-29-2020, 10:04 AM

Originally posted by _TomT_

'experts'

*points to a guy on youtube

https://youtu.be/vz_BoX2lYBg

**_TomT_** · 03-29-2020, 10:05 AM

Originally posted by JDoe

https://youtu.be/vz_BoX2lYBg

Well I am glad to see that Ms Cleo landed on her feet after her business went bankrupt.

**Mr. Beretta** · 03-29-2020, 10:17 AM

Originally posted by JDoe

https://youtu.be/vz_BoX2lYBg

I got to 29 seconds & couldn't listen anymore.

**GlockN'Roll** · 03-29-2020, 10:17 AM

I expect, within the next few weeks, a sudden and dramatic growth of the virus in the US coupled with a predictably large growth in mortality in the coming weeks.

Big cities with their tight living are going to be especially hard hit.

China didn't lock down Wuhan out of "an abundance of caution"...

Many in the US continue to live, work and especially travel without regard to the consequences to our society...

I look forward to being wrong on this topic.

**Mr. Beretta** · 03-29-2020, 10:18 AM

Originally posted by _TomT_

'experts'

*points to a guy on youtube

An Expert is a drip under pressure.

**JDoe** · 03-29-2020, 10:20 AM

Originally posted by Mr. Beretta

An Expert is a drip under pressure.

Unconfigured Ad Widget

"Experts" drastically alter course on coronavirus?

"Experts" drastically alter course on coronavirus?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Calguns.net Statistics

What's Going On