[martingoodson]

This is misinformation. This is not a major revision in any sense. Read the Imperial College paper. The estimates were different between the 'mitigation' and 'supression' strategy. The UK have now changed strategy to 'supression'. Hence the different prediction.

[tyingq]

Now at the bottom of the article...

"Correction: The original title of this article incorrectly suggested that Neil Ferguson stated his initial model was wrong. The article has been revised to make clear that he provided a downgraded projection given the new data and current mitigation steps."

[jtbayly]

I've read the Imperial College Paper. Transmissibility is a major change [0]. The original paper says we are only just at the beginning of the time we will have to spend quarantined over the next 12-18 months, off and on. With the new transmissibility estimate, it would mean that we are a few weeks away from the peak and then done with this.

If you can show me I'm wrong, please do.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2238578-uk-has-enough-i...

[triceratops]

> Transmissibility is a major change [0]

I'm not sure you read your own link correctly.

"New data from the rest of Europe suggests that the outbreak is running faster than expected, said Ferguson. As a result, epidemiologists have revised their estimate of the reproduction number (R0) of the virus. This measure of how many other people a carrier usually infects is now believed to be just over three, he said, up from 2.5. “That adds more evidence to support the more intensive social distancing measures,” he said."

[jtbayly]

I'm sorry. You are correct. Although Ferguson attributes most of the benefit to the lockdown, he does acknowledge a change of R0 further revising the numbers down.

Where I got confused was attributing some of the things said by Gupta (behind the Oxford model) to Ferguson (behind the Imperial College model).

[yters]

I don't know if you've played with the model, but going from 2.6 R0 to 3 is a significant difference, doubling the death rate in some cases. I am very curious how this affects the modeling. If the real world death rate is not corresponding to the model, then this could indicate a lower lethality and wider spread than previously anticipated.

[sgt101]

This is my reading. I believe that this is correct.