Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut
Honestly? No, I really don't think they did. Because if so, explain how their 4/1 update was STILL so far off. They already saw what efforts had been undertaken and the models were still dart throws.
I think they worked backwards from raw data derived from Italy, Spain and China. And I think we already know that the trash Imperial College model was based on a SARS and MERS model that idiot Ferguson recycled - I think the IMHE piggy backed on that piece of crap and tried to smash it together with Italy data (as the most transparent source of information available) and other datapoints emerging from Western Europe.
I cannot overstate enough how badly I think this people ****ed this thing up. I think you could've given an upper level stats class this assignment and they'd have come up with better models than this.
I cannot convince myself that any intelligent people actually started a clean sheet analysis of this and came up with these pieces of shit, no. These were recycled and reverse engineered models that they were trying to rush to to the press so they could be the first to get their names out there. They're complete tripe and all of these excuses are just attempts to rehab what should be a far more shattered reputation than they seem to be suffering.
The fact that anyone takes anything they say at face value right now demonstrates how little attention they paid to how wrong these jackasses were.
|
How could they not have made some assumption? Social distancing is one of the most important mitigation efforts used to fight this thing. That doesn't make any sense to me.
As to your question, I presume because they either didn't have this 90% compliance revision on 4/1, or did and simply hadn't run the model with that revised percentage. It doesn't have to be nefarious. You seem to think it is. What's the motivation for them to do so?