all say the assumptions made in this report are nonsensical. In essence, Ferguson took China's data at face value, put it into his flu model, and spit out the results. There appears to have been no challenge or critical thinking on whether China was accurately catching the total number of people infected by this disease. Everyone universally agrees that you can't take China's data at face value, yet that is exactly what Ferguson did. We pay epidemiologists for their ability to make accurate assumptions and models. If all they are doing is "match", we could have any trained monkey do that. And Birx testified yesterday that his model isn't even remotely matching reality. Yet, people, like you, still blindly cite it like its scripture. That's my issue.

Doesn't it concern you at all this his paper hasn't been peer reviewed yet people are making huge policy decisions based on it?