Why do COVID-19 modelling groups typically produce ‘scenarios’ rather than long-term forecasts when exploring possible epidemic dynamics? A short thread... 1/
Coverage of modelling is often framed as if epidemics were weather - you make a prediction and then it happens or it doesn’t. But COVID-19 isn’t a storm. Behaviour and policy can change its path... 2/
But of course, policy can change rapidly, informed by available evidence. Pointing out ‘a storm is coming’ won’t stop a storm, but pointing out a growing COVID outbreak could result in efforts to curb transmission. 4/
That’s why COVID models generally use scenarios, to illustrate epidemiological consequence of available options (including doing nothing). In this sense, models are a tool to aid decision making, not one to make weather-style predictions. 5/
That being said, it can be possible to make short-term forecasts of things like COVID hospitalisations and deaths, because these are impacts of events (i.e. infections) that have already happened, and hence should be more predictable. 6/
For endemic childhood infections - like rotavirus - cycles of outbreaks driven by build up of immunity then new susceptibility among children have made it possible to predict long-term effects of introducing vaccination.
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/325/5938/290.abstract 8/
More on how to evaluate forecasts, and discussion of challenges of forecasting infections like Ebola, where control measures also curbed transmission ( https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006785). 9/9
You can follow @AdamJKucharski.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled:

By continuing to use the site, you are consenting to the use of cookies as explained in our Cookie Policy to improve your experience.