Or the 480k estimate? Or even the 250k estimate?

Birx herself this week was talking about how the models have been showing how social distancing is working by daily going down in predicted deaths by tens of thousands. Why did none of the models we have been hearing about more accurately predict the effects of social distancing and hand washing?

I would have liked a reporter to ask the following:

Reporter: "We began social distancing on March 11th and were mostly quarantined nationwide by the 17th. Did the models not factor in the effects of extreme social distancing?"

Birx: "They did. But we just didn't know how effective they would be."

"Why do you think you and Dr Fauci have been citing ONLY models that were showing death totals that were far too high? Alarmingly high? Why choose those models over others that predicted far fewer deaths?"

Birx: "We have been relying on the modeling of leading epidemiologists."

Reporter: "Do you think those epidemiologists might have been biased?"

Birx: "No."

Reporter: "Do you believe if they had used numbers that resulted in predictions of far fewer deaths that their models would been been publicized by Dr Fauci and the media? Or would those models have ended up getting far less attention and attracted less research money than the models that showed extremely high deaths in the hundreds of thousands and even millions?"

I believe what we have seen with the models is the same thing we have seen from politicians during this crisis. Opportunism. The scientists were pulling numbers out of their rears to fit a narrative and every time they have revised their predicted death counts, that number was still too high.