I heard Dan Bongino quote an estimate from last week sometime late in the week that said by Sunday, there would be be 165K cases of COVID-19 admitted to hospitals nationwide, and when Sunday came, there were only something like 22K.
I haven’t verified that and it is possible that I misheard it so I listened a couple times to be sure, but...that is quite a disparity.
Not 5% or even 30%. What is that, a miss by 87%????
Models are fine for some purposes like calculating the yield of a nuclear weapon, but in a politically charged and deceitful environment such as we have, where there are so many factors that can be fed into a model, and many of those factors are guesses.
It isn’t surprising that there are entities out there who are disappointed those models didn’t hit their targets.
It is quite unprecedented.
RE: Models are fine for some purposes like calculating the yield of a nuclear weapon, but in a politically charged and deceitful environment such as we have, where there are so many factors that can be fed into a model, and many of those factors are guesses.
Welcome to the world of Climate Change modelling as just another example. Is it any wonder why they keep telling us environmental armageddon is just 12 years away?
Tracking site suggests White House model is overestimating coronavirus hospitalizations
"...The forecast predicted, for example, that the United States would need around 164,750 hospital beds for COVID-19 patients on Saturday. Yet the COVID Tracking Project, a team of journalists and data analysts who collect and tabulate coronavirus data from state tallies around the country, reported only around 22,158 currently hospitalized coronavirus patients nationwide on Saturday..."
One thing I try to keep in mind is that the Administration has to plan for a severe event and hope it turns out rosy, rather than planning for a rosy event and having it turn out severely.