The U.S. death toll from the coronavirus topped 200,000 Tuesday, a figure unimaginable eight months ago when the scourge first reached the world’s richest nation with its state-of-the-art laboratories, top-flight scientists and stockpiles of medicines and emergency supplies.
“It is completely unfathomable that we’ve reached this point,” said Jennifer Nuzzo, a Johns Hopkins University public health researcher.
Except that everyone did imagine it, and it was certainly not “unfathomable” when everyone was predicting WORSE THAN THIS!
- Jennifer Nuzzo, an epidemiologist, missed the ICL model forecast in March of 2.2 million dead in the U.S.?
- She missed the March 31st Trump White House projection of up to 200,000 dead with most deaths expected within “weeks”? -And that was assuming “we did everything perfectly”
- She missed the UW IHME random number generator forecast – made in May – of 242,890 dead – by August?
This is her job to know these things and she did not know? In fact, she is director of the Outbreak Observatory.
Nuzzo is co-author of a 2006 paper which said public health mitigation measures for pandemics do not appear to work – either because they are not sustainable, evidence exists that some measures do not work, or because there is no evidence to support their usage.
So what would she have done differently to reduce these deaths?
On June 2nd, 2020, Nuzzo posted to her social media that protesting was more important than fighting a virus.
1,288 of her colleagues joined her by signing a petition saying nearly the same – a petition that was then taken off line when they realized it destroyed the credibility of the entire field of public health.
- As an epidemiologist she missed the forecasts from March and May calling for far more than 200,000 by as early as August?
- She co-wrote a paper saying all the things we are now doing do not actually work. So what would we have done differently?
- Why is this “unfathomable” when her own field predicted worse conditions just a few months ago?
Considering the clear model forecasts from last spring, these statements from Nuzzo today are unambiguously political in nature and not based in science.
At the end of the AP news article, they blame the people for being “anti-science” while the “scientists” engage in non-science politicking. Epidemiology and public health has been a non-stop parade of inconsistent, contradictory, frequently wrong, and generally incoherent messaging, as illustrated above.
They are oblivious to their stream of inconsistent politicized nonsense – and then blame us for being confused. After all this crap, they then blame us for being Luddite idiots.
Afterward: A responsible AP reporter or editor would have noticed these inconsistencies in their story. The reporter missed all of this – or, did so intentionally as this article appears to be a political hit piece.