Point being your graph was in response to mine explaining how 75,000,000 won't get sick.... Right? Remember? Now you all are denying the conversation. You were mocking me for saying 75,000,000 won't get sick.
This was the principle study that I posted somewhere in the “Coronavirus in China” thread, from Imperial College in London. I have not gone back to that thread; this was saved in the folder I keep on Covid:
This passage is from the study:
Results
“In the (unlikely) absence of any control measures or spontaneous changes in individual behaviour, we would expect a peak in mortality (daily deaths) to occur after approximately 3 months (Figure 1A). In such scenarios, given an estimated R0 of 2.4, we predict 81% of the GB and US populations would be infected over the course of the epidemic. Epidemic timings are approximate given the limitations of surveillance data in both countries: The epidemic is predicted to be broader in the US than in GB and to peak slightly later. This is due to the larger geographic scale of the US, resulting in more distinct localised epidemics across states (Figure 1B) than seen across GB”.
—————————————————
The percentage estimates are even higher than 75-150 million infections. It was the physician to Congress who testified to Congress, a few days before the Imperial College study was published, that the US would see 70-150 million infections.
Dr. Brian Monahan told congressional staffers that roughly a third of the country will contract the virus.
www.axios.com
I do believe Dr. Fauci later said we should be cautious where such estimates are concerned. Fauci stated that model estimates were only as good as the assumptions built into the models. At any rate, I felt the Imperial College study was important, not because I have the medical expertise to judge the study, but because it then became clear that both GB and the US were reacting to that study, in major ways, something I believe I also noted at the time in the Coronavirus thread:
It warns that millions could die if months of disruptive measures aren't put in place.
www.axios.com
This is why I posted those links, or ones with identical information, and the Imperial College study, in the Coronavirus thread. And it was always clear that higher estimates of infection were based on an approach that amounted to doing nothing to stop the spread of the disease. None of this was fear mongering. It was posting information that was highly relevant at the time, esp. as it was effecting a change in the administration’s approach.
This is how I recall my end of things here. I hope I’m done explaining this, lol...
