IMO the IHME/Murray model communication was really confusing, especially considering it immediately became the gold-standard model for the USA. CT Bergstrom (U

IMO the IHME/Murray model communication was really confusing, especially considering it immediately became the gold-standard model for the USA. CT Bergstrom (UW bio prof in communication with IHME team) lays it out in his rapid peer review here: https://twitter.com/CT_Bergstrom/status/1243837050253496320 https://twitter.com/CT_Bergstrom/status/1243837050253496320 The uncertainty intervals are pretty confusing even to educated users trying to understand the results in good faith. The entire model used some version of the Wuhan intervention as a prior, and only the uncertainty in fitting curves to that prior is represented in the intervals. The problem is that the overwhelming majority of the uncertainty in actual outcome doesn't come from the curve-fitting uncertainty, but rather what prior to fit a curve to. The IHME model seems OK for what it does, but I'm baffled as to how it become the most-cited tool that we have. It's totally inflexible, and pretty confusing in terms of what it actually represents. Its overestimates are now being used as a bludgeon against people that take the virus seriously, which IMO is a major issue and I think wrong, but difficult to refute given how inflexible and confusing the model is.