I did read the article at the time mate. The 6,000 headline is obviously what the press ran with. It was a worst-case scenario model. And the worst-case scenario model should have been made clear that that's what it was - I'd argue by the modeler (in these articles, not their papers which frankly nobody in the general public will read), or at the very least the CMOs. Instead, all it is is urge restrictions etc etc and you get the backlash and tbf rightly so. It's a press problem as much as anything else even if I understand why the press do it.So, no effort to understand what it’s actually saying?
I mean here’s a line from that article:
“based on their modelling, hospitalisations could peak between 3,000 and 10,000 a day and deaths at between 600 and 6,000 a day.”
No mention of the word prediction, and you’ve taken the upper end of that model, to bolster your existing notion that the scientists are wrong and trying to scare us.
A bit of effort to understand these things isn’t hard.
Sorry to hear you’ve got the ‘Rona again.
Cheers fella. It'll be right, lemsip seems to work on this one. Which given the experience last time is a big improvement.