[burger]

I like how the new state charts include distancing activity and mobility changes. Also like that it includes testing data.

The new models are good and bad.

Good: it's a real SEIR (susceptible, exposed, infected, recovered) model, not just a curve fit.  The model confidence intervals behave like projections are supposed to--narrow at first and wider as time goes on.

Bad: A lot of their results seem to flow from the projections in distancing behavior.  And they seem to keep distancing behavior static over time.  So, these results probably don't have much predictive value given that 1) people are already showing reductions in distancing and 2) governors are starting to open things up.

Also bad: They're including temperature effects in the models, which are still very much up for debate, and density effects, which are also very much up for debate.

This is a better model than the original in many ways, but I don't think these predictions are going to hold up.  Too many questionable assumptions.

[burger]

I like how the new state charts include distancing activity and mobility changes. Also like that it includes testing data.

The new models are good and bad.

Good: it's a real SEIR (susceptible, exposed, infected, recovered) model, not just a curve fit.  The model confidence intervals behave like projections are supposed to--narrow at first and wider as time goes on.

Bad: A lot of their results seem to flow from the projections in distancing behavior.  And they seem to keep distancing behavior static over time.  So, these results probably don't have much predictive value given that 1) people are already showing reductions in distancing and 2) governors are starting to open things up.

Also bad: They're including temperature effects in the models, which are still very much up for debate, and density effects, which are also very much up for debate.

This is a better model than the original in many ways, but I don't think these predictions are going to hold up.  Too many questionable assumptions.