Yammy
PhilJaz
Chris Whitty and his colleagues on SAGE have been using totally inaccurate modelling since day one. None of their PREDICTIONS have come anywhere near to reality.
Where do your accurate modellings come from? Which scientific paper or correlation of knowledge?
And what do you think their predictions actually mean? Or have you just half understood them? As far as I can tell, they mean "If you do nothing, this could happen . . " but when most people DO do something to prevent the prediction completely coming true, the minority who didn't understand react by believing that the prediction was wrong, so they DON'T need to do anything because it won't work.
We all spend a lot of money on house insurance, because it is predicted by financial experts that if our home is destroyed by lightning, fire, or flood we won't be homeless if we are insured. Yet very few of the people we know personally are sleeping on a park bench, and very city has shelters for the homeless, and dedicated teams who take care of those who need them.
Should we stop paying for insurance? Disband the fire brigade? We haven't needed to claim, so the prediction must have been false. The parks are not full of people whose houses are a heap of rubble, so it is clearly a waste of money. Should we just let the fire burn, we'll be OK, Jack, and never mind the sparks in our neighbour's thatch?
Every city also has a hospital, and dedicated teams who take in those who need help to survive CoVid, and a very large proportion of the population are wearing masks, staying away from crowded areas and not hugging their grandchildren. By doing these things they have made the early predictions seem to have been wrong. But every hospital is full of people who can't breathe due to CoVid
You wouldn't refuse to take precautions for your belongings, why refuse to take precautions for your health, potentially your life, and for all those you might pass it on to?