I stumbled across this body of research yesterday, very interesting and with verifiable links, recommended reading
[vigiliae.org]

As a structural engineer, I can assure you that computer models are very useful (unless you are a bridge in Italy). But, we should always remember the purpose of the model. My goal in a structural model is to size elements and connections so that they do not fail under the "worst expected conditions."

If I were putting a model together for this pandemic, I would want to provide conservative inputs so that anyone who plans based on that model should also be conservative in their reactions. The mortality rate is 0.6% to 3% - model 3%, community guidelines will reduce the exponential growth from doubling every 2 days to doubling every 4 to 8 days - model doubling every 4 days.

The real understanding, as with structural models, environmental models, etc... won't be understood until it is balanced against the economic loss. In this case, as our inputs are being defined by reality, we should now balance the loss of expected life due to the virus vs the loss of life due to the loss of economy (a very real thing).

Currently, I am frustrated with the direction of discussion. The goal of physical distancing was never to reduce the total infected but to reduce the load on our hospital staff. In real numbers, our peak was on April 3rd. Impending doom appears to have been averted. Now we need leadership to get us back to work while maintaining some measures to keep the numbers at a plateau (under the hospital capacity). We should all be talking about testing and tracing.

If you examine human behavior from its physical and philosophical origins, you see this pattern:

1. Life
2. Safety
3. Freedom
4. Happiness

The cultural split is along 2 and 3. Those models were made by people who are afraid of losing safety.

Those who value freedom more were right partially because there is a system in place to protect safety.

This is why the right gets tagged as conspiracy theorists, groupthink is indistinguishable from conspiracy.

Use of "computer models" it would seem is a pretty neat trick used to fool people into believing their "output" - the results spit out by these subjectively constructed algorithms are in reality objectively arrived at conclusions. It's like a card trick..."is this the card you selected madam?"

Remember the expression "a chain is only as strong as its weakest link". I say a computer model is only as objective as its developers and those who compile the data programmed into it.
There can be little doubt that the programming - the input of computer models is always skewed favorably toward and according to the world view - the socio-political leanings of those who create said computer models.

It is a real life example of the mythical emperor of Emerald City - standing behind a curtain whilst working levers and wheels that make it seem that he is an all seeing all powerful godlike figure - a being not to be doubted much less denied - to do so would mean death for any would be doubters.

Well stated! Thanks- I"m going to copy and share this.

Well said and great read, thanks.