This is exactly what happened.
Now the UW model has been readjusted to predict 134k deaths total. The new model still suffers from the same flaw: it assumes something will change in May/June to cause the epidemic's trajectory to suddenly change direction and get under control.
Now the UW model has been readjusted to predict 134k deaths total. The new model still suffers from the same flaw: it assumes something will change in May/June to cause the epidemic's trajectory to suddenly change direction and get under control.
Perhaps it will, perhaps it won't. But it's an odd thing for a model to assume, since our future response cannot be inferred from past data. You might as well make the reverse assumption: "gradual reopenings will cause the trajectory to change course, in the wrong direction"
That's what throws me off with these models: they don't appear to acknowledge that how the future turns out is a consequence of our actions. They start from the assumption that the curve will go flat, and then they fit a curve that fits past data plus this unjustified assumption.
A better model would be presented as a set of possible actions taken by the fed govt / state govts / the public, and outcomes conditioned on these actions.
This would involve actually modeling transmission and economic/social activity, rather than fitting a curve.
This would involve actually modeling transmission and economic/social activity, rather than fitting a curve.
And don't get me started on the "cubic model" from the WH (cubic fit in Excel?) predicting 0 deaths in two weeks
