Beer
Well-Known Member
What the hell are you talking about? No they were/are NOT! The very early data might have been unreliable(China) and outlier'ish(Italy), but pretty much the whole world that followed was following very similar curves until they took measures. How the **** can you call them worthless? This is preposterous. They had problems and the input was not great initially, because we had never gone through anything like this in modern history, but IMO a lot of the models were quite useful and instrumental in actually limiting the spread.
Now I would like to see the new models and analysis after this whole thing is over and all the data is in. I want to see some serious analysis on the measures.
What measure accounts for how large of a portion of the decrease in transmission? Were some of the measures an overkill? Were some of them underestimated? I want to see what strategies for combating future epidemics will arise from this.
Even now it is completely unreliable. Faulty data is being put in. I'm not sure how you are supposed to trust models with wildly inaccurate data being used to build it out. The rash decisions made off of fictional numbers at the beginning of this will be known as one of the biggest blunders of modern times.
Yes, the measures were absolute overkill. It should have been sick and old stay home and stay away from everyone as much as possible, everyone else focus on being sanitary and wearing masks as much as possible. But now we've got an unemployment **** show to deal with for the next 5 years.