|
Re: Coronavirus
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman
But where is the source that outlines the underlying assumptions? Because if it’s the same model I saw in the Mail (which it looks very much like) it projects people “remaining cautious” for a year, with the alternative being Plan B plus a return to 2019 activity in three months.
Comparing apples with oranges.
|
Here’s the Source paper - the pre-pandemic baseline was about population mobility, not about zero infections. The is nothing in the Sky article about "zero infections".
https://assets.publishing.service.go..._scenarios.pdf
Quote:
|
Here, we consider four scenarios: three scenarios in which mobility returns to pre-pandemic “baseline” levels but after different lengths of time (3 weeks, 3 months, or 6 months), and one scenario in which mobility stays at its current level for the remainder of the simulation
|
If you look at the data table on page 4, it shows a substantial increase in the number of forecast infections in all the modelled scenarios.
Even the most conservative model shows an additional 1.6 million infections in the period Jan 2022-Sept 2022.
__________________
Thank you for calling the Abyss.
If you have called to scream, please press 1 to be transferred to the Void, or press 2 to begin your stare.
If my post is in bold and this colour, it's a Moderator Request.
Last edited by Hugh; 05-11-2021 at 18:27.
|