Then it's a scenario model, which asks what-if questions usually for planning purposes (e.g., what's the most hospital beds we might need?). Scenario models can have longer time horizons than forecasts, but 6 months is still quite long.

That is a quite cool way of separating those models. Can you point me in a direction where I could learn more? RE: Forecast vs Scenario?

It's the same thing. Just the latter implies you're identifying an assumption or two as variable and modeling outcomes of some of them changing. They're all forecasts. To argue otherwise is semantic pedantry.

If “useful to compel” is a criteria, we can jump straight to flat-out lying and dispose with the statistics part.

welcome to government!

Or industry!

The GP is invoking the idea of a compelling understanding, one that produces action by buy-in.

If you're confused on that point vs sinister authoritarian actions, then the risk of other people lying to you is far from your biggest problem.

So you're in charge of making decisions. Hypothetically. Your epidemiologists believe that if no action is taken, 10 people will die in the next two weeks, 100 people will die in the next 4 weeks, and 1,000,000 will die in the next 6 months.

Which forecasts would you prefer they keep to themselves?

Starting an implication with “if no action is taken after 100,000 deaths” is the same as “if false” — you can put anything in the “then” and have the statement be logically sound - that doesn’t mean it’s in any way useful.

End of the day that kind of talk just damages trust in the scientific process, which has to be at an all time low with regard to epidemiology, as a result of the stream of certified lies that have been presented as public policy over the past few years. (“Masks don’t work” being the first of many)

> “if no action is taken after 100,000 deaths” is the same as “if false”

Is useful as the higher bound and for judging the results of actions.

But still... I think you're too sure about people in charge following reasonable behaviours. We don't even have to go as far as the great famine. There's lots of things going wrong now where people responsible explicitly do not address the issue.

> Starting an implication with “if no action is taken after 100,000 deaths” is the same as “if false” — you can put anything in the “then” and have the statement be logically sound - that doesn’t mean it’s in any way useful.

1) Not when YOU are the person who determines if action should be taken!

2) You seem to be implying that action can be taken at 100,000 which will be effective at preventing the spread to 1,000,000 which may be true or may be false, but it's going to be far easier to stop it at 10 regardless.

We already did quite a bit of lying during the Covid pandemic.