That really doesn't answer the question. That methodology looks extremely dodgy, and merely having funding from the Gates foundation doesn't make it right.
It's curve-fitting. By real epidemiologists. It's not just based on Wuhan, but based on knowledge of how things like this spread. Wuhan fit the model, so there's hope.
But it's just curve-fitting. And it depends on certain things, like people being smart. You get your parameters from what you observe.
They're getting flack from other epidemiologists for doing just that. Curve-fitting the AIDS epidemic suggested it would peter out in 1995.
We only have the same curves if we put in the same restrictions as Wuhan, or get R down as much. Yet we still have megachurches holding services.
And politicians are using these as worst-case scenarios already, which will make them complacent about the urgent need for more ventilators, masks and PPE supplies.
dhimes|6 years ago
But it's just curve-fitting. And it depends on certain things, like people being smart. You get your parameters from what you observe.
If you have a better way to do it please share.
danielharan|6 years ago
We only have the same curves if we put in the same restrictions as Wuhan, or get R down as much. Yet we still have megachurches holding services.
And politicians are using these as worst-case scenarios already, which will make them complacent about the urgent need for more ventilators, masks and PPE supplies.