Wow, we have suddenly adhered well to the measures! If the British variant were to prevail, we would now be at 170,000 infections per day, remember?
Van Dissel said that at least a month ago in the AD. Dennis Zeilstra calls that a factor of 10 too high on Twitter. It is now even a factor of 40 too high.
Een ruime week geleden bevestigde het rivm al dat het zover was met die overhand. de 50% moet inmiddels allang dik gepasseerd zijn, weet iedereen die Kuipers enthousiast zag doceren bij Thijs van den Brink, over stof die hij zelf niet zo goed beheerste. "Het aantal Britse besmettingen verdubbelt per week", meldden OMT-leden.
A few days ago I posted a table about those rattling predictions ( also on FB ). Definitely too straightforward and simple, but unambiguous. The 'starting point' of the model mentioned in the AD is week 3 in my table. A good month later you are indeed at 170,000. However, the number of infections is now approximately 4,000, not 170,000.
The trend remains slightly downwards and no matter what Van Dissel tries, he cannot get it up. This can only be because we have adhered to the rules better than expected. Of course, it never indicates incoherent calculations by the RIVM... J
Jaap can be very happy with the 'outcome' of a 'model' - the more threatening, the more cautious - but if he does not check whether the calculations do not result in a grab bag of contradictions, he will drive himself and others crazy and lose all credibility - or has already lost it for many.
The starting point of the model is January 8 with 10,000 per day. However, there were 7,500 on January 8 (so why 10,000?).
The historical overview of the 'infections' (now: 'positive tests'!) has disappeared from the RIVM site. Can't be made into chocolate of course. At least they now report percentage of positive tests and total number of tests.
Looking back at the figures can still be done on e.g. bddataplan.nl (scroll down)
