Let's take his PDF. https://www.dropbox.com/s/75uio2lyl5x4xxp/7.Analysis_of_Coronavirus-2019_Data_Michael_Levitt.pdf?dl=0&fbclid=IwAR2h3YZ4z5JuMiK9BJUotDeGKzmj

Let's take his PDF. https://www.dropbox.com/s/75uio2lyl5x4xxp/7.Analysis_of_Coronavirus-2019_Data_Michael_Levitt.pdf?dl=0&fbclid=IwAR2h3YZ4z5JuMiK9BJUotDeGKzmjCiOLo7aV3-WOC8CpzIZak8IE1--wV8M https://www.dropbox.com/s/75uio2lyl5x4xxp/7.Analysis_of_Coro... He presented a bunch of authoritative looking numbers and graphs, and says "if we draw a curve through these, we see this trend". And it turned out to be massively wrong, but he never issued a mea culpa. Instead, he says "Going off of the only numbers that I already had, it basically quite clearly said that inside Hubei, there would be a few thousand deaths, and outside of Hubei in China there would only be a few hundred deaths. And that was enough to give people more confidence in understanding the virus, though I don’t think it really prepared the rest of the world for what was going to end up happening. " Yes, there is a reason that actual epidemiologists did NOT come to that conclusion: due to myriad factors, data about disease is messy, and you need to account for that. I never see him acknowledge that fact; I just see more "I connected these dots and extrapolated the curve predictions", even though that hasn't worked for him yet: > I think it’s going to end up with less deaths than what I thought. In March, I thought there would be a total of 220,000, but there will be less than that. Right now it is around 155,000 in the U.S., and I am expecting it to end up under 170,000 or maybe 175,000.