This being the case, why not wait till we have better data to do the modelling? After all this, I no longer trust the scientists or the medical establishment. It's complete bullshit. No wonder people have had enough. Been taken for absolute fools.
Only an absolute fool would expect scientists to be able to accurately predict the future. People have unrealistic expectations about what modelling can achieve.
Sometimes I felt like banging my head against the wall when there was outrage that Imperial used a model for influenza to model COVID 19. We knew nothing about the virus, you can't just magic up a model and data from thin air in a matter of weeks, we only had existing knowledge to work with.
One of the hardest things to predict in models that has one of the biggest impacts on transmission (and, therefore, case numbers, deaths) is human behaviour. If you aren't meeting people, you can't infect them or get infected.
I would suggest that previously, the worse the prediction of a model, the better compliance with restrictions, the more precautions people took, improving the outcome... Please don't jump on that as a conspiracy theory, I am not suggesting it was deliberate to get people to comply. I am just hypothesising that with very little data on how people would behave, the effect of restrictions on transmission may have been underestimated because we didn't really know how many people could WFH, whether people would comply with rules etc. I would also make a guess that despite having that data now, I doubt people will behave in the same way this time around...
What do you think would happen if we waited for better data to model, @churchofthepoisonmind? Shall we wait for hundreds or thousands of people to die so we can accurately predict how many more will die? Or shall we make a best guess now to prevent any unnecessary deaths, then update the model when we have more data?