Re: Still confused as to how this app makes the slighest bit of difference..
> And you know what: I'm still going to listen to people who publish papers with their names on them and in things like peer review, because that's how you get good information
So you missed the bit were I wrote exactly that. That's exactly what I have been reading, the literature, since the leading epidemiologists / infectious disease specialists at HKU Med School had their very public press conference in the middle of January when they went public with the very disturbing numbers their faculty members had just seen in Wuhan. Totally different from the official Chinese Government public statements at the time. Which is when I started really paying attention.
As for the defense of the Imperial models in March. Given that that so much destruction has been done to lives and livelihoods based on complete fraudulent models, which is exactly what they were, I think its time that the people responsible should pay a price for their maleficence. Ferguson and his group did a huge amount of damage to the county. There should be a price to pay for professional misconduct of this level.
Researchers in other countries produced models, far more scientifically responsible models, than what the Imperial group produced. Starting with the very first epidemiological models of SARs CoV 2 from the HKU Med school presented at that press conference. In January. The HKU model used a R0 of 2.0/2.5. Based on initial direct clinical observations. The models from the South Korean and Taiwanese CDC's, to mention just two, produced in the next few weeks (early February) used the same kind of model variable numbers. Realistic clinical numbers for airborne infectious diseases. Then later the first models out of Norway, Switzerland and Germany CDC equivalents, who were most transparent in published their models and assumptions, followed the lead of the HKU, SK, TWN etc with realistic model numbers which were adjusted down on each model iteration as more clinical data became available.
The Imperial numbers on the other hand were not just outliers but complete aberrations. When compared with other model produced in January and February. Thats why I use the term professional malfeasance. Because that s exactly what it was.
As for the whole "flatten the curve" crap. Only two countries in Europe suffered a complete collapse of their medical systems in March, the only two with totally socialized medical system. Spain and Italy. Because totally socialized medical system have no surge capacity. A very large published body of literature on this particular subject over the last few decades. A known system flaw. As the UK actually has a largish private medical system it had surge capacity. Lots of it. Like France, Germany, the Nordics etc. The Nightingale hospitals were almost completely unused because the private hospitals in the UK gave it more than enough surge capacity.
So what was you point again?