I'm still not getting it. How can we accurately estimate the spread of the virus based on confirmed cases, which is already flawed data to begin with? I know the US test data is crap, but if what posters in this thread are saying is true, then the UK's testing data is bad as well (as are many other countries). I honestly don't know how other countries are doing because they're not part of the dashboard that I look at daily.
I still have a hard time believing there's exponential growth. Say we go back to March 1st, at that time there were 84 confirmed cases in the US. If we assume doubling every day, that means today we should be at 88 million or about a quarter of the US. As it stands today, we're at 14,332 confirmed cases. If my math is right (and lord knows it might not be) that's about a 30% per day increase.
I'm really trying to accept the scientific explanation, but the data just seems so incomplete that I'm not sure how they're making any determination.
I think the big problem is that every model, study, graph, etc. is being presented like it's the truth when really it's someone's best, educated guess based on the data we currently have. I think the average person probably doesn't understand the science isn't an exact art and there are a ton of variables that can move the number any which way. I think it was Vox or Slate or The Hill (one of those questionable media outlets) that had an article with graphics that said something like the "the math spells catastrophic consequences for the US". While some math certainly does, it seems like that article did a really good job cherry-picking facts to fit their story's narrative.
Not telling the whole story and skewing the facts is just making people more frightened and panicky. It's also having a devastating impact on the economy (which could last longer than the virus's impact).
Honestly, past the local health department and the university I work for, the best coverage I've found about COVID-19 is on SirusXM's Coronavirus Radio (yes they have a station, Channel 121). They're not afraid to say "we don't know" and they almost always present stuff with caveats that whatever outcome they're talking about is based on x, y, z data set. I can appreciate any media outlet that simply goes we're not sure because in my mind that's better than giving incorrect or incomplete data.
* I know tone sometimes gets lost in written form, so please don't think I'm being combative here. I legit don't understand and I'm trying to do so.