I'm not taking a position on the Imperial College model. I'm explicitly advocating that all models should have their assumptions examined. And that policy makers should use a range of model and not depend on just one.

You will have nothing to add if the “2.2 million deaths in the US” scenario, which was blasted across every newspaper front page a few weeks ago, turns out to have been impossible all along?

If that scenario was “completely wrong” too, it seems like it would serve as a perfect example of the consequences of this kind of (still hypothetical) misinformation.

Wasn't ot explicitely worst case? No measures taken and so on? The imperial articles are free to download and all I have read had assumptions stated very clearly.

We can't rerun the experiment with a control version of the US in which nothing was shut down and we continued to have crowded sports events and night life. So it won't be possible to determine that the 2.2 million deaths scenario is impossible, especially if it's interpreted as 2.2 million extra deaths from either COVID-19 or other causes that could have been treatable by a medical system that wasn't completely overwhelmed.

I’m extremely pissed off at these folks who built an unfalsifiable model, panicked the whole world, and will now pretend that it is “science” as they ignore and downplay the death and destruction that follows in the wake of their foolishness. This will not stand.

Why do you think the Oxford model compares poorly to the Imperial one? Both are created by eminent people in their field. Neither has been peer-reviewed.