Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinChief
Have you seen the most recent Oxford model? They changed the assumption regarding the rate of severity and showed a model that fit the reality in the UK but was based on it having almost peaked at this point.
That is something I am having a problem reconciling when experts make projections based on us being in the very early phases of this. That assumption seems off to me. We know it spreads ridiculously fast. We know that it was in the wild in the US for AT LEAST 2 months (more likely 3) with little to no mitigation. Not just wishful thinking here, but the revised Oxford model simply makes more sense to me.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/oxmu2rwsnh...0(13).pdf?dl=0
Another issue is with testing. Since we aren't testing for antibodies, we have no clue what the negatives mean. Are those people susceptible to the virus or people who are now immune? |
So models that are based on an earlier time of introduction of the virus to the population combined with a lower fraction of the population that is susceptible to the worst outcomes are able to fit the data and indicate a much faster accumulation of herd immunity. This would be a great outcome. I am skeptical because the models were only allowed to run for the first 15 days after the first death and already by that time the model was showing 50% herd immunity. The reason given for only running the model 15 days was to avoid the influence of social distancing. However, they could run the model beyond the 15 days as a business as usual. That simulation should serve as a "business as usual" upper bound for deaths. If actual deaths, even with social distancing practices invoked, exceeded the "business as usual" upper bound, it would undermine the model.
Still interesting, and somewhat hopeful perspective.