You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
-Short Attention Span Theater-
CDC director downplays coronavirus models, says death toll will be 'much lower' than projected
2020-04-07
[ABC] One of the nation’s top public health officials suggested Monday that because Americans are taking social distancing recommendations "to heart," the death toll from the novel coronavirus will be "much, much, much lower" than models have projected.

"If we just social distance, we will see this virus and this outbreak basically decline, decline, decline. And I think that's what you're seeing," said Robert Redfield, the Director of the Centers for Disease Control.

"I think you're going to see the numbers are, in fact, going to be much less than what would have been predicted by the models," he said.

Redfield’s remarks on Monday to AM 1030 KVOI Radio in Tucson, Arizona, struck a rosier tone than some other recent predictions. On Monday morning, for example, the U.S. Surgeon General equated the coming week’s fallout to the attacks on Pearl Harbor.

But officials on the White House task force have said they believe that even with a tough week ahead, the numbers in some places suggest that social distancing is working and could provide a reprieve eventually.
Posted by:Besoeker

#12  Mathematics is just another human language. It can be twisted like any other. People who proselytize about the "purity" of mathematics know exactly what they are doing.
Posted by: M. Murcek   2020-04-07 21:44  

#11  The "math" is an incantation. The "results" are entrails and tea leaves. Believers become enraged when this is pointed out...
Posted by: M. Murcek   2020-04-07 19:35  

#10  Schnork...
Posted by: M. Murcek   2020-04-07 18:12  

#9  Well, I don't know MM. I just know that, as new evidence accumulates, old models become outdated and have to be replaced.
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2020-04-07 17:57  

#8  Models are a modern form of superstition. They make gullible people believe certain outcomes are inevitable. Can you say Calvinism? I knew ya could....
Posted by: M. Murcek   2020-04-07 17:38  

#7  Steve, it's the same model (from 1930es) they use for any epidemic: viral, bacterial, or protozoan.
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2020-04-07 14:24  

#6  First of all, lets clear one thing. They all use the same model - just give different values to parameters.

That's a key point. This is a novel virus, meaning it's not just the latest fad, but that we've never been exposed to it before. We don't know what the parameters like infection rate and mortality are.

For a first pass, they just pulled some numbers from their ass took a best-guess as the value of the model parameters. This lead to what in hindsight are wild over-estimates. As we get some better data, the model parameters get updated with better values and we see more realistic answers.

The sin here is not bad models, but that results were sold without *any* kind of estimates as the range and uncertainty of the parameter values. That is bad science.
Posted by: SteveS   2020-04-07 14:12  

#5  First of all, lets clear one thing. They all use the same model - just give different values to parameters.
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2020-04-07 13:14  

#4  GIGO
Posted by: Abu Uluque   2020-04-07 12:56  

#3  I've heard the devil is in the details.

I guess they don't teach that in journalism school.
Posted by: Bobby   2020-04-07 12:55  

#2  Models are useful for predicting what will happen given a certain set of assumptions.
Posted by: Iblis   2020-04-07 12:06  

#1  Just like the 'models' on gerbal warming

The experts aren't
Posted by: Procopius2k   2020-04-07 11:34  

00:00