they pick THEIR models, and it is always sky high. It does not help anyone to yell "the sky is falling" every fucking time.
I am all for people wearing masks and social distancing and doing what we can to protect ourselves.
Each time the numbers are statistically far better, it serves the idiots who don't care and are pushing the non-science agenda.
yes, i made a typo, congratulations. that doesn't invalidate my argument.
models are rarely perfect, and are often used to present both best- and worst-case scenarios
based on what we know at the time. in this case, we didn't know a whole lot going in, because this virus had never been present in humans before. so based on the knowledge at the time , "if we do nothing, there could be 2 million dead" was projected as the
worst case scenario.
and public health officials have a duty to protect the...public health. therefore, presenting the worst case scenario is essential to communicating the risk associated with a particular course of action (doing nothing)
social distancing, mask wearing, shutting down non-essential businesses, and most importantly - people's participation in these risk-mitigating actions - all affect the outcome.
so yes, if a model says "2 million dead" if we do nothing, and then we take drastic measures, we're not going to hit that 2 million dead anymore.
even if models predict "well, if the virus has an Ro of 1.5, and people wear masks 50% of the time, and they move around in this manner, and social distancing is only 70% effective. etc." "....500k dead in 6 months" well guess what? that's our best prediction based on the available information. could the model be wrong? absolutely. but using models to inform government action is better than no model at all and going by your gut, as one stable genius might do.
and this, ultimately, is why competent scientific communicators like Dr. Fauci, and consistent messaging from heads of state (who should be relying on those scientific communicators) are critical.