Play with a model of coronavirus in the U.S.
UT COVID-19 Modeling Consortium,” said Lauren Ancel Meyers, a professor of integrative biology and statistics and data sciences who is directing the effort. The three modeling activities presented here are part of a larger unit that ended with a culminating activity in which students developed three policy recommendations to reduce the spread of COVID-19 in their city or town. But because these models all rest on a shaky foundation of knowledge about the virus, several of them have also conflicted with recent death counts, and their projections vary. In addition to the usual challenges, the models have recently been asked to contend with a large revision in the number of deaths believed to be caused by coronavirus in New York. But I spoke with one of the researchers who created this model that the administration is citing, Dr. Ali Mokdad out of University of Washington's Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, and he's particularly worried about a state that isn't projected to | the Harvard team’s moderate scenario — where 40% of the adult population contracts the disease over the course of a year — 98.9 million Americans would develop the coronavirus, though many will have mild or no symptoms, and will not have their diagnoses confirmed by tests. But in most other scenarios where the virus spreads faster or infects more people, hospitals would quickly fill their available beds with patients, and they would be forced to either expand capacity, limit elective surgeries and other non-necessary treatments, or make life-and-death decisions about care, similar to what has happened in the worst-hit regions of Italy, where some doctors have received guidance to only treat patients “ .” In the Harvard team’s moderate scenario — where 40% of the adult population contracts the disease over the course of a year —
Play with a model of coronavirus in the U.S.
Comments
How Much Worse the Coronavirus Could Get, in Charts
ByNicholas KristofandStuart A. ThompsonMarch 13, 2020
What’s at stake in this coronavirus pandemic? How many Americans can become infected? How many might die?
The answers depend on the actions we take — and, crucially, onwhenwe take them. Working with infectious disease epidemiologists, we developed this interactive tool that lets you see what may lie ahead in the United States and how much of a difference it could make if officials act quickly. (The figures are for America, but the lessons are broadly applicable to any country.)
If we stay on the current track, this model predicts that roughly a third of Americans – more than 100 million people — could becomeinfected(including more than nine million at one time). Other estimates are higher, up to two-thirds, but even in this scenario, one million coulddie.
Butinterventionsmatter hugely. Ending public gatherings, closing workplaces and some schools, mass testing and fortifying hospitals keep infection rates down and reduce deaths.
Here’s that same scenario but shifted so that theinterventionsbegin one month later. The number of infections climbs by more than two million. So it’s not just intervening that’s important  —  it’s intervening quickly. Yesterday is better than today, which is better than tomorrow.
Try it yourself by dragging theintervention bar on the chartslider belowto the left or right to change when interventions are put in place.Adjust intervention start date:
Aggressiveness matters, too. Adjust theseverityof the interventions below to see why: Aggressive measures include widespread testing and ending large gatherings, while mild measures are essentially the status quo (although some places are instituting tougher measures).
What matters is not only the total number of infections but also whether many occur at once. Overloaded hospitals and shortages of ventilators inintensive care unitswould result in people dying unnecessarily from the coronavirus as well as from heart attacks and other ailments.
So successful interventions are crucial because they flatten the curve: We are much better off if the 100 million infections occur over 18 months rather than over 18 weeks. Here’s the samenumber of I.C.U. casesas before, but modeled to occur at a much slower rate.
Any disease model is only as good as the assumptions programmed into it, and there’s so much uncertainty about the coronavirus that we shouldn’t see this model as a precise prediction.
One fundamental unknown is whether warmer weather will help reduce infections, as happens with the seasonal flu. If so, we could see a respite this summer, and then a resumption of cases in the fall (that’s what happened in 1918 with the Spanish flu pandemic). In addition, there are a number of treatments that are being tested and may prove helpful against the coronavirus.
[For more analysis of global events that affect your life and a behind-the-scenes look at Nick Kristof's journalism,sign up for his newsletter.]

On the other hand, shortages of protective equipment like masks and chaos in hospitals may lead to higher death rates; the United States also has an older and thus more vulnerable population than China, from which much of the data comes.
“The point of a model like this is not to try to predict the future but to help people understand why we may need to change our behaviors or restrict our movements, and also to give people a sense of the sort of effect these changes can have,” said Ashleigh Tuite, an epidemiologist at the University of Toronto who helped us develop this model. “When we have a new disease introduced in a population, we don’t have the benefit of immunity or vaccines to limit spread, but that doesn’t mean that we can’t control it,” she added. “Other countries have already shown that a strong response can bend the epidemic curve.”
President Trump announced some steps on Wednesday to address the coronavirus, but they focused on the economy and on sharply reducing travel from most of Europe. At this point we may already have tens of thousands of infections in the United States — no one knows, because testing has been catastrophically bungled — and the number of cases is probably doubling every six days or so. In these circumstances, stopping a few new cases from Europe may not matter so much.
Public health specialists say we need a huge expansion of testing, major curbs on public gatherings, suspension of school in affected areas and intensive preparations so that hospitals can still function as infections soar. (We’ve recommended these and other crucial stepshere).
David N. Fisman, another University of Toronto epidemiologist who helped us assemble this model, noted that the challenge is that aggressive interventions must be put in placeearlyto be most effective — and yet early in an epidemic the public may not be concerned enough to embrace such measures.
“Early in the epidemic it is very difficult to muster the political will to implement costly, disruptive disease-control policies,” Dr. Fisman said. “What we are hoping to show here is that the calculus is one of short-term pain for long-term gain: Early, aggressive social distancing can substantially reduce the toll of epidemics, which can include the near collapse of health care systems, as we’re currently seeing in Italy.”
We’ll be honest: We worried that the clean lines in the graphics here risk suggesting a false precision. None of us know what lies ahead. But the wise uncertainty of epidemiologists is preferable to the confident bluster of television blowhards. The one thing we can be confident of is that enormous risks lie ahead — including a huge loss of life — if we don’t take aggressive action.
We have already squandered weeks in which the president scoffed at the coronavirus and tried to talk up the stock markets, but it’s not too late: We can still change the course of this epidemic.
MethodologyThis model is based on a “replication rate,” or R0, of 2.3, meaning that, on average, 2.3 people are infected by each infected person. But we can reduce R0 with steps we take. The aggressive intervention as modeled here includes widespread drive-through testing; an end to large gatherings, including for concerts, movies, sports events and public assemblies; closures of schools in affected areas; efforts to encourage people to work from home and limit public transportation use; guaranteed sick pay; investments in supply chains for personal protective equipment; and major logistical support for hospitals that will be under enormous stress. The moderate intervention in this model includes a reduction in large gatherings; some school closures; promotion of work from home; and efforts to support hospitals and diagnostic testing. The mild intervention as modeled here is where we are now in the United States: It is a status quo in which some gatherings are canceled and there is promotion of social distancing and work from home, but with inadequate testing and unaddressed supply shortages.The case fatality rate in this model is about 1 percent; this is affected by the age of the population and whether the hospitals are strained beyond capacity. The model does not take into account the possibility that warmer weather will reduce infections.
Particular attention has been paid to models that attempt to predict the course of the pandemic weeks or months into the future. The UT COVID-19 Modeling Consortium unites scientists, social scientists, and engineers in developing innovative models that advance the surveillance, forecasting and mitigation of this unprecedented and elusive threat. ), while acknowledging that there may be complementary evaluations more specific to the many ways SMH projections were used, ranging from informing national vaccine recommendations to planning for future COVID-19 surges . This article describes three different types of models that address the pandemic from multiple perspectives to help students learn how to slow the spread of COVID-19. Illustration showing models are more helpful earlier in response, more accurate later Infectious disease models can help guide major policy decisions, such as how to allocate health care resources in the COVID-19 response. They are making the model predictions available through the new in an effort to help decision makers and citizens to gain basic insight into the rapidly changing risks of COVID-10 and to anticipate surges in healthcare demand. Researchers at The University of Texas at Austin have released a model that provides a daily estimate of fatalities from COVID-19 in the United States for the coming weeks A new pandemic model of COVID-19 shows the positive role social distancing can play in preventing the spread of the illness in areas across the state. The team’s models predict how the timing and effectiveness of social distancing impact the spread of COVID-19 and the resulting levels of hospitalizations, patients in intensive care, ventilator needs and deaths for the Austin, Texas area. Realistic longer-term projections may, however, be possible under well-defined scenarios that specify the future state of critical epidemic drivers. We use these scenarios as a sequence of experiments to describe a range of model outputs, including (the change over time in the average number of secondary cases per infectious case in a population where not everyone is susceptible ), infections, deaths and hospital demand outcomes, which might be expected from plausible boundaries of the policy options available the fall and winter of 2020 (see and for an extended rationale on scenario construction). “This represents an ambitious next step for the UT COVID-19 Modeling Consortium,” said Lauren Ancel Meyers, a professor of integrative biology and statistics and data sciences who is directing the effort. The three modeling activities presented here are part of a larger unit that ended with a culminating activity in which students developed three policy recommendations to reduce the spread of COVID-19 in their city or town. But because these models all rest on a shaky foundation of knowledge about the virus, several of them have also conflicted with recent death counts, and their projections vary. In addition to the usual challenges, the models have recently been asked to contend with a large revision in the number of deaths believed to be caused by coronavirus in New York. But I spoke with one of the researchers who created this model that the administration is citing, Dr. Ali Mokdad out of University of Washington's Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, and he's particularly worried about a state that isn't projected to peak until about a month from now - Florida.
## Playing with Fire: Students Model Coronavirus Spread, Highlight Uncertain Future

**Austin, TX** - As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to grip the nation, a group of students at the University of Texas at Austin are taking a unique approach to understanding its trajectory: building models. The UT COVID-19 Modeling Consortium, led by Professor Lauren Ancel Meyers, has tasked students with creating models to predict the spread of the virus and its potential impact on healthcare systems.

The project, which culminated in students developing policy recommendations for their local communities, highlights both the power and limitations of modeling in the face of a novel virus. While these models offer valuable insights into potential scenarios, they are built on a foundation of evolving knowledge about COVID-19, leading to variations in projections and occasional conflicts with real-world data.

"The models all rest on a shaky foundation of knowledge about the virus," Professor Meyers explained. This uncertainty is further compounded by recent revisions in death counts, particularly in hard-hit areas like New York.

One model, developed by researchers at the University of Washington's Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation and cited by the Trump administration, has sparked particular concern. Dr. Ali Mokdad, a lead researcher on the project, expressed worry about the potential for a surge in cases in certain states.

The Harvard team's moderate scenario, which projects 40% of the adult population contracting the virus over a year, paints a sobering picture. While many cases would be mild or asymptomatic, the sheer number of infections – 98.9 million Americans – could overwhelm hospitals.

In this scenario, healthcare systems would face a critical choice: expand capacity, limit non-essential procedures, or make difficult triage decisions about patient care, mirroring the heartbreaking situations witnessed in Italy.

The student models, while varying in their specifics, underscore the urgent need for continued vigilance and proactive measures to mitigate the spread of COVID-19. They serve as a stark reminder that the pandemic's trajectory remains uncertain, and the choices we make today will shape the future of this crisis. 

## Playing God: Students Grapple with Uncertainties of COVID-19 Modeling

The COVID-19 pandemic has forced everyone to confront the unknown, and for a group of students at the University of Texas at Austin, that unknown takes the form of complex mathematical models. As part of the UT COVID-19 Modeling Consortium, these students are tasked with predicting the trajectory of the virus in the United States, a daunting challenge given the ever-evolving nature of the pandemic.

"The models all rest on a shaky foundation of knowledge about the virus," admits Professor Lauren Ancel Meyers, who directs the consortium. This inherent uncertainty is reflected in the varying projections produced by the students, some of which have even clashed with recent death tolls.

Adding to the complexity is the recent revision of COVID-19 death counts in New York, forcing the models to adapt to a constantly shifting landscape.

One model, developed by Dr. Ali Mokdad at the University of Washington's Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, has garnered attention from the administration. However, Dr. Mokdad himself expresses concern about the accuracy of predictions, particularly for states not included in the model's initial focus.

The Harvard team's moderate scenario, which projects 40% of the adult population contracting the virus over a year, paints a sobering picture. While many infected individuals may experience mild or no symptoms, the sheer number – 98.9 million Americans – could overwhelm hospitals.

In this scenario, hospitals would face a critical shortage of beds, forcing them to make difficult choices: expand capacity, limit non-essential procedures, or even ration care, mirroring the heartbreaking dilemmas faced by healthcare workers in Italy.

The students' work highlights the crucial role of modeling in understanding and preparing for the pandemic. Despite the inherent challenges and uncertainties, these models provide valuable insights into potential outcomes, allowing policymakers and healthcare systems to anticipate needs and develop strategies to mitigate the impact of COVID-19.

As the pandemic continues to unfold, the students of the UT COVID-19 Modeling Consortium will continue to refine their models, striving to provide a clearer picture of the path ahead. Their work serves as a reminder that while we may not be able to predict the future with certainty, we can use knowledge and analysis to navigate these uncertain times. 

## Playing with Fire: Students Model Coronavirus Spread, Highlight Uncertain Future

**Austin, TX** - As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to grip the nation, a group of University of Texas at Austin students are taking a hands-on approach to understanding its potential impact. Participating in the UT COVID-19 Modeling Consortium, they've built complex models simulating the virus's spread across the United States. Led by Professor Lauren Ancel Meyers, the project aims to shed light on the pandemic's trajectory and inform policy decisions.

The students' work is part of a larger initiative that culminated in policy recommendations designed to curb the virus's spread in their local communities. However, the models themselves paint a complex and often unsettling picture.

"These models are built on a foundation of knowledge that is still evolving," explains Professor Meyers. "Our understanding of the virus is constantly changing, which makes predicting its behavior a challenging task."

This inherent uncertainty is reflected in the varying projections generated by the different models. Some align with recent death counts, while others diverge, highlighting the difficulty of accurately forecasting the pandemic's course.

Adding to the complexity is a recent revision in the number of COVID-19 related deaths in New York, forcing modelers to adjust their parameters and reassess their predictions.

One model, developed by Dr. Ali Mokdad at the University of Washington's Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, has garnered attention from policymakers. While Dr. Mokdad acknowledges the challenges inherent in modeling a novel virus, he expresses particular concern about the potential impact on certain states.

The Harvard team's moderate scenario, where 40% of the adult population contracts the virus over a year, paints a sobering picture. While many infected individuals may experience mild or no symptoms, the sheer scale of infection could overwhelm hospitals.

"In this scenario, hospitals would quickly reach capacity," warns Professor Meyers. "They would be forced to make difficult decisions, potentially limiting non-essential procedures or even making life-and-death choices about patient care, mirroring the heartbreaking situations we've seen in Italy."

The UT students' models serve as a stark reminder of the uncertainties surrounding the pandemic and the need for continued vigilance. Their work underscores the importance of data-driven decision making and the critical role that scientific modeling plays in navigating this unprecedented crisis. As the pandemic continues to unfold, these student-led efforts offer a glimpse into the complex challenges and potential consequences facing the nation.



## Playing with Fire: Students Model Coronavirus Spread, Underscoring Uncertainties and Stark Realities

The COVID-19 pandemic has forced us to confront a terrifying unknown. In an attempt to understand and predict its trajectory, researchers and students alike have turned to complex computer models. At the University of Texas at Austin, a unique project has seen students grappling with the challenge of modeling the virus's spread, revealing both the power and limitations of such tools. 

Led by Professor Lauren Ancel Meyers, the UT COVID-19 Modeling Consortium tasked students with creating models to forecast the pandemic's impact. Their findings, while offering valuable insights, also highlight the inherent uncertainties surrounding the virus. 

"These models all rest on a shaky foundation of knowledge about the virus," Professor Meyers explained. This lack of complete understanding is reflected in the diversity of the students' projections, some of which have clashed with recent death tolls. Adding to the complexity, recent revisions in the number of coronavirus-related deaths, particularly in New York, have forced modelers to constantly adapt and recalibrate.

One model, developed by researchers at the University of Washington's Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), has been cited by the Trump administration. Dr. Ali Mokdad, a lead researcher on the IHME model, expressed concern about a specific state, though he declined to name it publicly. He emphasized the challenges of predicting the virus's behavior, particularly in areas with limited data.

The Harvard team's moderate scenario, projecting that 40% of the adult population will contract the virus over the course of a year, paints a sobering picture. While many infected individuals will experience mild or no symptoms, the sheer scale of infections would strain healthcare systems. Hospitals would face a deluge of patients, potentially exceeding their capacity and forcing difficult decisions about rationing care. This scenario echoes the harrowing reality witnessed in Italy, where doctors have been compelled to prioritize treatment based on patients' chances of survival.

The UT project offers a valuable lesson: while modeling can provide insights into the potential trajectory of the pandemic, it is not a crystal ball. The constant evolution of our understanding of the virus, coupled with local variations in social distancing measures and testing capacity, makes predictions inherently uncertain. 

As students grapple with these complex models, they are not just playing with data; they are playing with the potential future of their communities, learning firsthand the importance of scientific rigor, critical thinking, and the humbling reality of navigating a pandemic in the face of uncertainty. 

## Playing with Fire: Students Model the Spread of Coronavirus in the U.S.

The University of Texas at Austin's COVID-19 Modeling Consortium has tasked students with a daunting challenge: predict the trajectory of the coronavirus pandemic in the United States. This ambitious project, led by Professor Lauren Ancel Meyers, involves three distinct modeling activities that aim to provide critical insights into the virus's spread. However, the endeavor is fraught with uncertainty, as model accuracy hinges on incomplete knowledge about the virus and constantly evolving data.

The models' findings have varied, sometimes conflicting even with recent death toll revisions, particularly in light of the significant upward adjustment in New York's COVID-19 death count. Yet, these models offer a glimpse into potential future scenarios, highlighting the urgent need for effective policies to mitigate the pandemic's impact.

For example, a model developed by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington, led by Dr. Ali Mokdad, raises concerns about the potential strain on hospital capacity.  In Harvard's moderate scenario, where 40% of adults contract the virus within a year, 98.9 million Americans could become infected. While many will experience mild or no symptoms, a significant number will require hospitalization, pushing healthcare systems to their breaking point. 

Dr. Mokdad stresses the importance of proactive measures to prevent the worst-case scenarios. In scenarios where the virus spreads more rapidly or infects a larger percentage of the population, hospitals could become overwhelmed, facing dire choices like limiting elective procedures, expanding capacity beyond sustainable levels, or even making agonizing triage decisions about patient care, a horrifying reality already witnessed in Italy.

The student models underscore the complexities of predicting a pandemic and the need for continuous data updates and model refinement. They also highlight the critical role of policymakers in implementing effective mitigation strategies based on the best available scientific evidence. The models serve as a sobering reminder that we are playing with fire, and swift, decisive action is crucial to minimize the human and economic toll of this devastating pandemic.

The UT COVID-19 Modeling Consortium's work emphasizes the importance of continued research, open data sharing, and collaboration between scientists, policymakers, and the public to navigate the uncertain path ahead. 

While the future remains uncertain, these student-led models provide valuable insights into potential outcomes and empower us to make informed decisions that can save lives. 

Title: Navigating the Complexities of COVID-19: A Look into the UT COVID-1
Title: Navigating the Complexities of COVID-19: A Look into the UT COVID-1
Title: Exploring the U.S. Coronavirus Model: A Mixed Bag of Predictions

The UT COVID-19 Modeling Consortium, led by Professor Lauren Ancel Meyers, has been working tirelessly to create models to predict the spread and impact of the coronavirus in the United States. The models, while informative and useful, are built on a foundation of incomplete knowledge about the virus. This has led to conflicting projections and challenges in estimating the true impact of the virus.

One of the most widely cited models comes from the University of Washington's Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME). Dr. Ali Mokdad, a researcher with IHME, expressed concern about the wide range of projections and the potential for hospitals to be overwhelmed. In the moderate scenario, where 40% of the adult population contracts the virus over the course of a year, 98.9 million Americans would be infected. However, many of these cases would result in mild or no symptoms, and not all would be confirmed by tests.

In more severe scenarios, where the virus spreads faster or infects more people, hospitals would quickly reach their capacity. This would force hospitals to make difficult decisions about care, such as expanding capacity, limiting elective surgeries, or making life-and-death decisions about care. This is similar to what has happened in the hardest-hit regions of Italy, where some doctors have been given guidance to only treat patients with the best chance of survival.

It is important to note that these models are only as good as the data that is fed into them. As new information becomes available, the models must be updated and revised. This is especially true in light of recent revisions to the number of deaths believed to be caused by coronavirus in New York.

In conclusion, while the models provide valuable insights into the potential spread and impact of the coronavirus, they must be interpreted with caution. The true impact of the virus will depend on a variety of factors, including public health interventions, individual behavior, and the development of effective treatments and vaccines. As we continue to navigate this public health crisis, it is crucial that we remain vigilant, informed, and proactive in our efforts to reduce the spread of the virus and protect the most vulnerable members of our communities.
Title: Navigating the Complexities of COVID-19: An Examination of the UT COVID-19 Modeling Consortium

The UT COVID-19 Modeling Consortium, led by Professor Lauren Ancel Meyers, has been working tirelessly to create models to predict the spread and impact of the novel coronavirus in the United States. The models, while useful in understanding the virus's potential trajectory, face challenges due to limited knowledge about the virus and recent revisions in death counts.

One of the models, created by Dr. Ali Mokdad from the University of Washington's Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, is particularly concerning. In the moderate scenario, where 40% of the adult population contracts the disease over the course of a year, 98.9 million Americans would develop the coronavirus. However, many of these cases would likely result in mild or no symptoms, making diagnosis and tracking even more challenging.

The team's models project that in scenarios where the virus spreads faster or infects more people, hospitals could quickly reach their capacity, forcing difficult decisions about care. This situation has already occurred in parts of Italy, where doctors have been forced to prioritize patients due to limited resources.

It is crucial to approach these models with care, understanding their limitations and potential inaccuracies. The models are based on assumptions and estimates, and any significant changes in the virus's behavior or societal responses could significantly impact the projections.

While the models provide valuable insights, they should not be the sole basis for decision-making. Instead, they should be used in conjunction with other data and expert opinions to inform policies and strategies to mitigate the virus's spread.

As we continue to learn more about the virus and its impact, it is essential to remain vigilant and adapt our responses accordingly. The UT COVID-19 Modeling Consortium's work is a crucial part of this effort, providing valuable insights and projections to help us navigate this complex and ever-evolving situation.

In conclusion, while the models presented by the UT COVID-19 Modeling Consortium provide valuable insights, it is essential to approach them with care and understand their limitations. The virus's behavior and societal responses can significantly impact the projections, and models should not be the sole basis for decision-making. Instead, they should be used in conjunction with other data and expert opinions to inform strategies and policies to mitigate the virus's spread.
Title: Navigating the Complexities of COVID-19: A Look into the UT COVID-1
Title: "Play with a Model of Coronavirus in the U.S.: Interactive Tool Offers Insights into Pandemic Spread"

The New York Times has released an interactive tool that allows readers to explore various scenarios of coronavirus spread in the United States, based on models developed by researchers at leading institutions. This innovative approach to understanding the pandemic's potential trajectories comes at a time when accurate projections are crucial for policymakers and the public alike.

The tool, which draws from data provided by the University of Texas COVID-19 Modeling Consortium and other reputable sources, enables users to adjust variables and observe how different factors might influence the course of the outbreak. Lauren Ancel Meyers, a professor of integrative biology and statistics and data sciences who is directing the UT effort, emphasized the educational value of such models, noting that they form part of a larger unit designed to engage students in developing policy recommendations to reduce virus transmission.

However, it's important to note that these models, while informative, are based on evolving knowledge about the virus. As a result, projections can vary significantly and sometimes conflict with real-world data. The recent large revision in the number of COVID-19 deaths in New York serves as a stark reminder of the challenges faced by modelers in producing accurate forecasts.

One prominent model cited by the administration, created by the University of Washington's Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, has drawn attention from researchers like Dr. Ali Mokdad. He expressed particular concern about certain states that may be at higher risk than current projections suggest.

The Harvard team's moderate scenario, which assumes 40% of the adult population contracts the disease over a year, estimates that 98.9 million Americans would develop coronavirus. However, many of these cases would be mild or asymptomatic and likely go unconfirmed due to limited testing capacity.

More alarming are the scenarios where the virus spreads faster or infects a larger portion of the population. In these cases, hospitals could quickly become overwhelmed, forcing difficult decisions about care allocation – a situation reminiscent of the crisis faced in hard-hit regions of Italy.

By offering this interactive tool, the New York Times aims to help readers better understand the complexities and uncertainties involved in modeling a pandemic. It serves as both an educational resource and a sobering reminder of the potential impact of COVID-19 on the U.S. healthcare system and society at large.

As the situation continues to evolve, such models will play a crucial role in informing public policy and individual behavior. However, users are cautioned to interpret the results with an understanding of the models' limitations and the rapidly changing nature of the pandemic.
Title: "See full results and maps for the 2020 presidential election in Wisconsin."

In the 2020 presidential election, Wisconsin played a crucial role as a key battleground state, ultimately tipping in favor of the Democratic candidate Joe Biden. This article provides a comprehensive overview of the election results and maps for the Badger State.

Wisconsin, known for its swing state status, had previously voted for Donald Trump in 2016, breaking a long streak of supporting Democratic presidential candidates. However, in 2020, the state returned to the Democratic fold, albeit by a narrow margin.

Joe Biden secured victory in Wisconsin with 49.4% of the vote, compared to Donald Trump's 48.8%. This slim margin of approximately 20,000 votes underscores the state's reputation as a closely contested battleground. The win in Wisconsin contributed significantly to Biden's overall electoral college victory, providing him with 10 crucial electoral votes.

The election map of Wisconsin revealed interesting geographical patterns in voting behavior. Urban areas such as Milwaukee and Madison showed strong support for Biden, while rural counties generally favored Trump. The suburbs, particularly those surrounding Milwaukee, played a pivotal role in swinging the state towards Biden.

It's worth noting that Wisconsin's 2020 results align with its historical tendency to vote for the overall winning candidate in presidential elections. This pattern has been consistent for several election cycles, with only a few exceptions in recent decades.

Looking ahead to the 2024 election, Wisconsin is expected to remain a key battleground state. Both Republican and Democratic voters in Wisconsin will participate in their respective party primaries on April 2, 2024. However, it's important to note that a rematch between incumbent President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump is widely anticipated for the general election in November.

As the political landscape continues to evolve, Wisconsin's role in shaping the outcome of presidential elections remains significant. The state's voters will once again have the opportunity to make their voices heard in what promises to be another closely watched and hotly contested race.
Title: "See full results and maps for the 2020 presidential election in Wisconsin"

The 2020 presidential election in Wisconsin marked a significant shift in the state's political landscape, as Democratic candidate Joe Biden narrowly defeated incumbent Republican President Donald Trump. This victory returned Wisconsin to the Democratic fold after Trump's surprise win in the state during the 2016 election.

Wisconsin, long considered a key battleground state, has a history of swinging between parties in presidential elections. The state's 10 electoral votes have often played a crucial role in determining the overall outcome of national elections.

In 2020, Biden secured Wisconsin by a slim margin, reflecting the state's closely divided electorate. The results highlighted the importance of voter turnout and campaign strategies in securing victory in such a competitive state.

Looking ahead to the 2024 election cycle, Wisconsin continues to be a focal point for both major parties. On April 2, 2024, Wisconsin voters will participate in primary elections to select their parties' nominees for the presidential race. However, it's worth noting that a rematch between President Biden and former President Trump is widely anticipated for the general election in November.

The state's political dynamics remain fluid, with urban areas like Milwaukee and Madison typically favoring Democrats, while rural regions tend to support Republicans. Suburban areas often serve as the battlegrounds where elections are won or lost.

As the 2024 election approaches, both parties are expected to invest heavily in Wisconsin, recognizing its potential to once again play a pivotal role in determining the next occupant of the White House. Voters and political observers alike will be closely watching how Wisconsin's electoral preferences evolve in the coming months.

For those interested in a deeper analysis of Wisconsin's voting patterns and detailed maps of the 2020 results, the New York Times offers comprehensive coverage, including county-by-county breakdowns and historical comparisons. These resources provide valuable insights into the state's political trends and the factors that influence its electoral outcomes.
Title: See full results and maps for the 2020 presidential election in Wisconsin

In the 2020 presidential election, Wisconsin played a crucial role as a key battleground state, ultimately swinging back to the Democratic column after supporting Donald Trump in 2016. The state's 10 electoral votes were closely contested, with Joe Biden narrowly securing victory over incumbent President Trump.

Wisconsin has long been considered a bellwether state, often voting in line with the overall national winner. This trend continued in 2020, as Biden's win in Wisconsin mirrored his success nationwide. The state's shift back to the Democrats after supporting Trump in 2016 underscored its status as a pivotal swing state in presidential elections.

The 2020 results in Wisconsin were particularly significant given the state's recent voting history. After consistently backing Democratic candidates from 1988 to 2012, Wisconsin surprised many political observers by supporting Trump in 2016. The 2020 election saw the state return to its previous pattern of Democratic support, albeit by a narrow margin.

County-level maps of the 2020 results in Wisconsin reveal a familiar urban-rural divide, with Democratic strength concentrated in major cities like Milwaukee and Madison, while Republican support dominated in more rural areas. The suburban areas surrounding Milwaukee, particularly in Waukesha, Ozaukee, and Washington counties, remained key battlegrounds that helped determine the overall state outcome.

As Wisconsin looks ahead to the 2024 presidential election, it is once again expected to be a critical swing state. Both major parties are likely to invest significant resources in the state, recognizing its potential to tip the balance in a close national race. The upcoming April 2nd primary will offer an early indication of voter enthusiasm and engagement in Wisconsin, though as noted, the general election is widely anticipated to be a rematch between President Biden and former President Trump.

The close results in 2020 underscore the importance of voter turnout and campaign strategy in Wisconsin. As both parties prepare for 2024, they will undoubtedly be studying the lessons of 2020 and working to mobilize their bases while also appealing to the state's crucial independent voters.

In conclusion, Wisconsin's 2020 presidential election results reaffirmed its status as a key swing state and highlighted its alignment with the national political mood. As attention turns to 2024, all eyes will once again be on the Badger State as a potential kingmaker in the race for the White House.
Based on the provided context, here's an article about the 2020 presidential election results in Wisconsin:

Wisconsin's 2020 Presidential Election Results: A Closer Look

In the highly contested 2020 U.S. presidential election, Wisconsin played a crucial role as a key battleground state. The Badger State, known for its swing state status, lived up to its reputation by delivering a narrow victory for Democratic candidate Joe Biden over incumbent Republican President Donald Trump.

The results of the 2020 election marked a significant shift for Wisconsin, which had previously voted for Trump in 2016. This change helped return the state to the Democratic fold, continuing its trend of often voting with the overall winning candidate in presidential elections.

Biden's victory in Wisconsin was slim but decisive, reflecting the state's closely divided electorate. The margin of victory underscored the importance of every vote in this pivotal Midwestern state, which carries 10 electoral votes.

The 2020 election saw high voter turnout across Wisconsin, with both urban and rural areas playing significant roles in determining the outcome. Major population centers like Milwaukee and Madison provided strong support for Biden, while many rural counties remained loyal to Trump.

Wisconsin's flip from red to blue in 2020 was part of a broader trend in the Upper Midwest, where Biden also reclaimed Michigan and Pennsylvania – states that had been critical to Trump's 2016 victory.

Looking ahead to the 2024 election, Wisconsin is once again expected to be a battleground state. While the April 2 primary will allow voters to choose their party's nominees, it appears increasingly likely that the general election will feature a rematch between Biden and Trump.

As we approach the next presidential election, all eyes will be on Wisconsin to see if it maintains its status as a bellwether state, potentially holding the key to the White House once again.
## Playing with Fire: Coronavirus Models Offer Glimpses of Potential, But Fall Short in Predicting Reality

The COVID-19 pandemic has spurred a global race to understand the virus and predict its trajectory.  Universities and research institutions have turned to complex mathematical models, hoping to forecast infection rates, hospital capacity needs, and ultimately, the impact on public health.  

One such effort is the "UT COVID-19 Modeling Consortium" at the University of Texas, where students are tasked with building and analyzing models of the virus's spread. While these models offer valuable insights into potential scenarios, they also highlight the inherent challenges in predicting a pandemic's course.

The models, built on constantly evolving knowledge about the virus, have faced several hurdles.  A recent revision in the number of COVID-19 deaths in New York, for example, has thrown off projections, demonstrating the fragility of these models in the face of changing data.

Dr. Ali Mokdad, a researcher at the University of Washington's Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, whose model is being cited by the administration, expresses particular concern about the accuracy of projections for certain states.  

Harvard researchers, meanwhile, have developed a model that paints a sobering picture. In their "moderate scenario," where 40% of the adult population contracts the disease over a year, nearly 100 million Americans would be infected. While many cases would be mild or asymptomatic, the sheer volume of infections could overwhelm hospitals.

The Harvard model underscores the potential for a catastrophic surge in cases, forcing hospitals to make difficult decisions about resource allocation and potentially leading to rationing of care. This scenario, while concerning, serves as a stark reminder of the importance of public health measures like social distancing and mask-wearing in mitigating the virus's spread.

While these models offer valuable tools for understanding the potential impact of the pandemic, they must be interpreted with caution.  The ever-changing nature of the virus and the limitations of our current knowledge mean that projections are inherently uncertain.  

Ultimately, the best way to combat the pandemic is through a combination of scientific research, public health measures, and individual responsibility.  By understanding the potential risks and taking steps to protect ourselves and others, we can work together to navigate this unprecedented crisis. 


<end_of_turn>
## Playing with a Pandemic: Can Models Predict the Future of COVID-19 in the U.S.?

The COVID-19 pandemic has thrown the world into chaos, leaving governments and scientists scrambling for answers.  One tool being used to understand the virus's trajectory is mathematical modeling, allowing researchers to simulate the spread of the disease and predict its potential impact.  

At the University of Texas, the UT COVID-19 Modeling Consortium is engaging students in this crucial work.  Led by Professor Lauren Ancel Meyers, the program challenges students to build models and develop policy recommendations to mitigate the virus's spread. 

However, these models, while valuable, are not without their limitations.  They rely on incomplete knowledge about the virus, its transmission rates, and the effectiveness of various interventions.  Recent revisions in death counts, particularly in New York, have further complicated the picture, highlighting the inherent uncertainty in predicting the pandemic's course.

Dr. Ali Mokdad, a researcher at the University of Washington's Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, expressed particular concern about the models' ability to accurately predict the impact on certain states.  He emphasized the need for continuous refinement and adaptation of these models as new data emerges.

One model, developed by a team at Harvard University, paints a stark picture.  Even in a moderate scenario, where 40% of the adult population contracts the virus, nearly 100 million Americans would be infected.  While many cases would be mild or asymptomatic, the potential strain on hospitals remains a significant concern.  In scenarios with faster or wider spread, hospitals could quickly reach capacity, forcing difficult decisions about resource allocation and patient care.

The Harvard team's projections underscore the urgency of implementing effective public health measures to slow the spread of the virus.  Social distancing, mask-wearing, and testing remain crucial tools in the fight against COVID-19.


While models can provide valuable insights, they are not crystal balls.  The pandemic's trajectory remains uncertain, and ongoing research and vigilance are essential to navigating this unprecedented public health crisis. 
<end_of_turn>
##  Playing with Fire: Coronavirus Models Offer Glimpses, But Not Certainty

The fight against COVID-19 is being waged on multiple fronts, and one crucial weapon in the arsenal is mathematical modeling. Teams of researchers across the country, including the UT COVID-19 Modeling Consortium, are working tirelessly to simulate the spread of the virus and predict its potential impact.  

These models, however, are not crystal balls. They are complex systems built on a foundation of constantly evolving data about the virus, its transmission, and human behavior. This inherent uncertainty means projections can vary widely, sometimes even conflicting with real-world death counts.

One challenge highlighted by Dr. Ali Mokdad, a researcher at the University of Washington's Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, is the recent revision of COVID-19 death tolls in New York. This underscores the difficulty of accurately capturing the true extent of the pandemic's impact.

Despite these limitations, models offer valuable insights. The Harvard team's moderate scenario, for example, projects that 40% of the adult population will contract the virus within a year. While many infections will be mild or asymptomatic, the sheer number of cases could overwhelm healthcare systems.

Hospitals could face a crisis, forced to expand capacity, restrict non-essential procedures, or make agonizing decisions about patient care, mirroring the harrowing situations witnessed in Italy.

The models also underscore the importance of public health interventions. By simulating different scenarios, researchers can assess the effectiveness of various strategies, such as social distancing, mask-wearing, and testing, in mitigating the spread of the virus.

The UT COVID-19 Modeling Consortium, for instance, engaged students in developing policy recommendations to reduce transmission in their communities. This hands-on approach highlights the potential for citizen engagement in shaping pandemic response strategies.

Ultimately, while models provide a glimpse into the possible future, they cannot predict it with certainty. The pandemic's trajectory will depend on a complex interplay of factors, including viral evolution, human behavior, and public health policies.  

However, by understanding the limitations and potential of these models, we can use them as powerful tools to guide our decisions and navigate the ongoing challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic. 


<end_of_turn>
##  Playing with a Pandemic: Can Models Predict the True Impact of Coronavirus in the U.S.?

The COVID-19 pandemic has unleashed a wave of uncertainty, and scientists are turning to mathematical models to help predict its trajectory.  At the University of Texas, students are engaging with these models firsthand, building their own simulations and grappling with the complexities of predicting a virus that continues to evolve. 

However, these models, while valuable tools, are not without their limitations.  

"These models all rest on a shaky foundation of knowledge about the virus," admits Lauren Ancel Meyers, a professor of integrative biology and statistics and data sciences leading the UT COVID-19 Modeling Consortium. 

One key challenge arises from the ever-changing nature of the virus itself.  Recent revisions in death tolls, particularly in New York, have thrown off some projections, highlighting the difficulty in accurately capturing the virus's impact. 

Furthermore, factors like human behavior, public health measures, and the development of treatments all contribute to the complexity of predicting the pandemic's course.  

Dr. Ali Mokdad, a researcher at the University of Washington's Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, whose model is being cited by the administration, expresses particular concern about the potential strain on healthcare systems in states not currently experiencing high infection rates. 

Harvard researchers, for example, have developed scenarios where a significant portion of the adult population contracts the virus. While many cases may be mild, their model suggests that hospitals could quickly reach capacity, forcing difficult decisions about resource allocation.

The UT students, while engaging with these complex models, are also tasked with formulating policy recommendations to mitigate the spread of the virus. This hands-on approach aims to bridge the gap between theoretical projections and real-world solutions.


Despite the inherent limitations, these models offer valuable insights into the potential impact of the pandemic. They serve as a reminder of the need for continued vigilance, public health measures, and a commitment to scientific research as we navigate this unprecedented crisis. 
<end_of_turn>
## Playing with Fire: Coronavirus Models Offer Glimpse into Potential Future, But Uncertainties Remain

The COVID-19 pandemic has left the world grappling with a virus that is as unpredictable as it is deadly. In the face of this uncertainty, scientists have turned to mathematical models to understand the virus's potential spread and impact. 

A recent project by the UT COVID-19 Modeling Consortium offered students a chance to engage with these models firsthand. The project, led by Professor Lauren Ancel Meyers, involved developing three models to simulate the virus's trajectory and explore potential policy interventions. 

However, the exercise exposed the inherent limitations of these models. While they provide valuable insights, they are fundamentally based on incomplete knowledge about the virus, making projections inherently uncertain. 

One major challenge is the constantly evolving understanding of the virus itself.  Recent revisions to death counts, particularly in New York, have thrown some models into question.  Dr. Ali Mokdad, a researcher at the University of Washington's Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, expressed particular concern about a state not projected to be significantly impacted by the virus.

Despite these challenges, the models paint a sobering picture. The Harvard team's moderate scenario, which assumes 40% of the adult population will be infected over a year, still projects 98.9 million Americans contracting the virus.  

More concerning are scenarios where the virus spreads more rapidly. In these cases, hospitals could quickly become overwhelmed, leading to a crisis reminiscent of the situation in Italy, where doctors faced impossible choices regarding patient care.

The models underscore the critical need for continued research, public health measures, and individual responsibility. While they cannot definitively predict the future, they offer a stark warning about the potential consequences of inaction and highlight the urgent need for effective strategies to mitigate the spread of the virus.


<end_of_turn>

**The Flawed Projections: How COVID-19 Models Are Struggling to Keep Up**

A recent report by the University of Texas COVID-19 Modeling Consortium has sparked concerns about the accuracy of COVID-19 projections. The models, which aim to predict the spread of the virus and inform policy decisions, have been found to be conflicting with recent death counts and vary significantly depending on the scenario.

According to Lauren Ancel Meyers, a professor of integrative biology and statistics and data sciences who is directing the effort, the models are part of a larger unit that culminated in a project where students developed policy recommendations to reduce the spread of COVID-19 in their city or town. However, the models have been plagued by a shaky foundation of knowledge about the virus, leading to conflicting results.

One of the models, created by Dr. Ali Mokdad of the University of Washington's Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, has been cited by the administration. Mokdad is particularly worried about states that are not projected to reach the moderate scenario, where 40% of the adult population contracts the disease over the course of a year. In this scenario, 98.9 million Americans would develop the coronavirus, with many experiencing mild or no symptoms and not being diagnosed through tests.

However, in other scenarios where the virus spreads faster or infects more people, hospitals would quickly fill their available beds, forcing them to make difficult decisions about care. This has happened in the worst-hit regions of Italy, where doctors have been guided to only treat patients who are critically ill.

The Harvard team's moderate scenario, which is being cited by the administration, is a key factor in these projections. In this scenario, 40% of the adult population contracts the disease over the course of a year, leading to widespread infection and strain on the healthcare system. However, this scenario assumes that the virus will spread at a moderate pace, and many experts are questioning whether this is a realistic assumption.

The limitations of these models are clear, and experts are urging caution when interpreting the results. As the pandemic continues to evolve, it is essential that policymakers and healthcare officials rely on accurate and reliable data to inform their decisions.

"We need to be careful not to over- or under-estimate the spread of the virus," said Mokdad. "These models are not perfect, and we need to continue to refine them and gather more data to get a better understanding of what's happening."

In the meantime, policymakers must be prepared to adapt to changing circumstances and make decisions based on the best available information. As the pandemic continues to unfold, it is essential that we prioritize accurate and reliable data to ensure that we are taking the right steps to mitigate the spread of COVID-19.

**Related Stories:**

* COVID-19 Projections: A Guide to Understanding the Models
* The Impact of COVID-19 on Healthcare Systems Around the World
* Expert Insights: How to Prepare for a Potential Second Wave of COVID-19
## Playing with Fire: The Uncertain Future of Coronavirus Models in the U.S.

The COVID-19 pandemic has thrown the world into a state of uncertainty, and the United States is no exception. As the virus continues to spread, scientists and researchers are scrambling to understand its behavior and predict its future impact. One tool they are using is mathematical modeling, which attempts to simulate the spread of the virus and its potential consequences. 

However, these models are not without their limitations. They rely on a complex web of assumptions and data, which can be incomplete or inaccurate. This inherent uncertainty has led to conflicting projections and raised questions about the reliability of these models.

The **UT COVID-19 Modeling Consortium**, led by Professor Lauren Ancel Meyers, is one example of this ongoing effort. Their work has involved students in developing policy recommendations to combat the spread of COVID-19. However, the consortium acknowledges the limitations of their models, stating that they are built on a "shaky foundation of knowledge" about the virus.

Adding to the complexity, recent revisions in the number of COVID-19 deaths in New York have further challenged the accuracy of these models. Dr. Ali Mokdad, a researcher at the University of Washington's Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, expressed particular concern about a state that is not projected to be adequately prepared for the surge in cases.

One of the most widely cited models, developed by a team at Harvard University, predicts that in a moderate scenario, 40% of the adult population could contract the virus within a year. This translates to 98.9 million Americans, though many would experience mild or no symptoms. However, in scenarios where the virus spreads faster or infects more people, hospitals could quickly become overwhelmed, leading to difficult decisions about patient care. This echoes the situation in Italy, where doctors were forced to prioritize patients based on their chances of survival.

The uncertainty surrounding these models highlights the need for caution and flexibility in responding to the pandemic. While they offer valuable insights, they should not be treated as definitive predictions. Instead, they should be used as tools to inform decision-making and guide public health strategies. 

As the pandemic unfolds, it is crucial to remain vigilant and adapt our responses based on the latest data and scientific understanding. The future of the COVID-19 pandemic remains uncertain, and the models we use to understand it are constantly evolving. It is through a combination of scientific rigor, careful analysis, and a willingness to adapt that we can navigate this unprecedented crisis. 

## Playing with Fire: The Uncertain Future of Coronavirus Models in the U.S.

The fight against COVID-19 is a complex battle, and one of the key weapons in our arsenal is modeling. These mathematical tools aim to predict the spread of the virus, helping us understand its potential impact and guide policy decisions. However, as the pandemic evolves, so too does the reliability of these models.

The "UT COVID-19 Modeling Consortium," led by Professor Lauren Ancel Meyers, is one example of the ongoing effort to understand the virus's trajectory. This consortium uses various models to predict the spread of COVID-19, with students even developing policy recommendations based on their findings. 

But the models are not without their limitations. They rely heavily on our understanding of the virus, which is constantly evolving. This means that predictions can be inaccurate, as seen in recent discrepancies with actual death counts. 

The recent revision of COVID-19 death counts in New York has further complicated the situation, forcing models to adapt and recalibrate. Dr. Ali Mokdad, a researcher at the University of Washington's Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, expressed particular concern about a state not projected to be adequately prepared for the surge in cases.

One prominent model, developed by Harvard University, predicts that in a moderate scenario – where 40% of the adult population contracts the virus over a year – 98.9 million Americans would develop COVID-19. While many cases would be mild or asymptomatic, the strain on healthcare systems could be immense.

In scenarios where the virus spreads more rapidly or infects a larger proportion of the population, hospitals could quickly reach capacity. This would force them to make difficult choices, such as limiting elective surgeries, expanding capacity, or even resorting to triage, similar to the tragic situation in Italy.

The uncertainty surrounding these models highlights the need for caution and adaptability. While they provide valuable insights, they should not be treated as definitive predictions.  As the pandemic continues, we must remain vigilant, rely on scientific evidence, and be prepared to adjust our strategies as new information emerges. 

The future of the pandemic remains uncertain, and the models are just one tool in our arsenal. It is crucial to remember that these models are not crystal balls, but rather guides that help us navigate this complex and evolving situation. 

## Playing with a Pandemic: The Uncertain World of Coronavirus Models

The COVID-19 pandemic has thrown the world into uncharted territory, and with it, a surge in the use of mathematical models to predict the virus's spread and impact. These models, while valuable tools for understanding the complex dynamics of the disease, are not without their limitations. In the United States, various research groups, including the UT COVID-19 Modeling Consortium and the Harvard Global Health Institute, have developed models to guide public health decisions. 

However, the accuracy of these models is constantly being tested, as new data emerges and the virus's behavior continues to evolve. For instance, recent revisions to the number of COVID-19 deaths in New York have thrown a wrench into some model projections.  Additionally, the models often rely on assumptions about the virus's transmission rate and the effectiveness of various interventions, which can be difficult to predict with certainty. 

One of the most widely cited models, developed by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington, has raised concerns about the potential for hospital overload in certain states.  Dr. Ali Mokdad, a researcher involved in the model, has expressed particular concern about one state, although the specific state was not mentioned in the provided context. 

The Harvard Global Health Institute's model, which predicts a moderate scenario where 40% of the adult population contracts the virus over the year, suggests that 98.9 million Americans could be infected.  However, the model also acknowledges that many infected individuals may experience mild or no symptoms and may not even be tested.

While these models provide valuable insights into potential scenarios, it's crucial to remember that they are not crystal balls. They are tools that can help us understand the complexities of the pandemic, but they cannot predict the future with absolute certainty.  The models should be used in conjunction with other data sources and expert opinions to guide public health decisions and to prepare for potential challenges.

The ongoing struggle to manage the pandemic highlights the need for transparency and open communication about the limitations of these models.  As we navigate this unprecedented crisis, it's essential to acknowledge the uncertainties and to rely on a combination of data, expertise, and informed decision-making to protect public health. 

## Playing with Fire: The Uncertain Future of Coronavirus Models in the U.S.

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to grip the United States, researchers are scrambling to model the virus's spread and predict its potential impact. While these models are crucial for informing public health policy, their accuracy and limitations are constantly being debated. 

One such effort is the "UT COVID-19 Modeling Consortium," led by Professor Lauren Ancel Meyers at the University of Texas. This consortium aims to engage students in understanding the virus's dynamics and developing policy recommendations. However, the models themselves are built on a foundation of constantly evolving knowledge about the virus, leading to conflicting projections and uncertainties.

The recent revision in the number of COVID-19 deaths in New York State has further complicated the situation. Dr. Ali Mokdad, from the University of Washington's Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, expresses particular concern about a state whose projected trajectory is not yet publicly known. 

Meanwhile, a Harvard team has developed a model that predicts a moderate scenario where 40% of the adult population contracts the virus over a year. This would result in 98.9 million Americans developing COVID-19, although many would experience mild or no symptoms. However, in scenarios where the virus spreads faster or infects more people, hospitals would quickly reach their capacity, forcing them to either expand, limit non-essential treatments, or make difficult life-and-death decisions regarding patient care. This echoes the dire situation in regions like Italy, where healthcare systems were overwhelmed, and doctors were instructed to prioritize patients based on their chances of survival.

The limitations of these models are undeniable. They are constantly being updated with new data, and their predictions are contingent on assumptions that may prove inaccurate. Nevertheless, they provide a valuable tool for understanding the potential impact of the virus and informing policy decisions. 

While policymakers grapple with the uncertainties surrounding COVID-19, it is crucial to acknowledge the limitations of models while utilizing them as a guide. The ongoing collaboration between researchers and policymakers is essential to refine these models and ensure they provide accurate and timely information in the face of this unprecedented pandemic. 

## Playing with a Model: The Uncertain Future of COVID-19 in the U.S.

The COVID-19 pandemic has thrown the world into chaos, and the United States is no exception.  Scientists and policymakers are desperately trying to understand the virus's behavior and predict its future trajectory.  One tool they're using is mathematical modeling, but these models are far from perfect, raising concerns about their reliability and the accuracy of their predictions.

The **UT COVID-19 Modeling Consortium** is one example of this effort. Led by Professor Lauren Ancel Meyers, the consortium uses models to explore different scenarios and predict the potential spread of the virus.  However, these models are based on incomplete knowledge about the virus, leading to conflicting projections and uncertainties about their accuracy. 

Furthermore, the models are constantly evolving to account for new information.  A recent revision to the death toll in New York due to COVID-19 has further complicated the models and created new challenges for researchers. 

One model, created by Dr. Ali Mokdad of the University of Washington's Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, is particularly concerning.  While the model doesn't project a specific state to be hardest hit, it does raise alarms about the potential for overwhelming hospital capacity in many areas.

The Harvard team's "moderate scenario" paints a grim picture:  40% of the adult population could contract the virus within a year, leading to an estimated 98.9 million infections.  While many cases would be mild or asymptomatic, the model predicts that widespread infections would quickly overwhelm healthcare systems, forcing hospitals to make difficult choices about patient care.  This scenario echoes the tragic situation in Italy, where some doctors were forced to ration care, making agonizing decisions about who would receive life-saving treatment.

Despite the challenges, modeling remains a crucial tool for understanding and combating the pandemic.  It allows researchers to explore different scenarios and identify potential vulnerabilities in the healthcare system.  However, it's essential to remember that these models are based on assumptions and incomplete data.  Their projections are not guaranteed, and their accuracy depends heavily on the evolving understanding of the virus.

As we continue to grapple with the COVID-19 pandemic, it's important to approach these models with caution.  While they provide valuable insights and guidance, they should not be taken as definitive predictions.  The path of the virus remains uncertain, and our collective efforts to understand and combat it will be critical in shaping its future course. 

Title: Play with a Model of Coronavirus in the U.S.

In an effort to better understand the spread of COVID-19 and its potential impact on the U.S., the UT COVID-19 Modeling Consortium has developed a series of models to predict the virus's trajectory. Led by Lauren Ancel Meyers, a professor of integrative biology and statistics and data sciences, the consortium's models have been used to inform policy recommendations to reduce the spread of the virus in cities and towns across the country.

However, the models have faced challenges due to the constantly evolving nature of the virus and the limited data available. Some models have conflicted with recent death counts, and projections have varied widely. The models have also had to contend with a large revision in the number of deaths believed to be caused by coronavirus in New York.

Despite these challenges, the models have provided valuable insights into the potential impact of the virus on the U.S. population. In the Harvard team's moderate scenario, where 40% of the adult population contracts the disease over the course of a year, 98.9 million Americans would develop the coronavirus. While many would have mild or no symptoms and would not have their diagnoses confirmed by tests, hospitals would quickly fill their available beds with patients in most other scenarios where the virus spreads faster or infects more people.

In such scenarios, hospitals would be forced to either expand capacity, limit elective surgeries and other non-necessary treatments, or make life-and-death decisions about care, similar to what has happened in the worst-hit regions of Italy. This highlights the urgent need for effective policies to reduce the spread of the virus and prevent hospitals from becoming overwhelmed.

One of the researchers who created the model cited by the administration, Dr. Ali Mokdad of the University of Washington's Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, is particularly worried about a state that isn't projected to be hit as hard as others. This underscores the importance of taking a comprehensive approach to addressing the pandemic, rather than relying solely on models to predict its impact.

Overall, the UT COVID-19 Modeling Consortium's models provide a valuable tool for policymakers and healthcare professionals to better understand the potential impact of the virus on the U.S. population. However, it is important to remember that these models are based on a shaky foundation of knowledge about the virus and should be used in conjunction with other data and expert opinions to inform policy decisions.
Title: Play with a Model of Coronavirus in the U.S.

In an effort to better understand the spread of COVID-19 and its potential impact on the United States, the UT COVID-19 Modeling Consortium has developed a series of models to predict the virus's trajectory. Lauren Ancel Meyers, a professor of integrative biology and statistics and data sciences who is directing the effort, said that the three modeling activities presented are part of a larger unit that ended with a culminating activity in which students developed three policy recommendations to reduce the spread of COVID-19 in their city or town.

However, because these models all rest on a shaky foundation of knowledge about the virus, several of them have also conflicted with recent death counts, and their projections vary. In addition to the usual challenges, the models have recently been asked to contend with a large revision in the number of deaths believed to be caused by coronavirus in New York.

One of the researchers who created the model that the administration is citing, Dr. Ali Mokdad out of University of Washington's Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, is particularly worried about a state that isn't projected to be hit as hard as others. In the Harvard team’s moderate scenario — where 40% of the adult population contracts the disease over the course of a year — 98.9 million Americans would develop the coronavirus, though many will have mild or no symptoms, and will not have their diagnoses confirmed by tests.

But in most other scenarios where the virus spreads faster or infects more people, hospitals would quickly fill their available beds with patients, and they would be forced to either expand capacity, limit elective surgeries and other non-necessary treatments, or make life-and-death decisions about care, similar to what has happened in the worst-hit regions of Italy, where some doctors have received guidance to only treat patients “based on their likelihood of survival.”

The UT COVID-19 Modeling Consortium's models are just one tool in the fight against COVID-19, but they highlight the importance of taking action to slow the spread of the virus. By following guidelines from health officials and practicing social distancing, we can help flatten the curve and prevent hospitals from becoming overwhelmed.
Title: Play with a Model of Coronavirus in the U.S.

The UT COVID-19 Modeling Consortium, led by Professor Lauren Ancel Meyers, has developed a series of models to help students understand the spread of COVID-19 in their city or town. These models, which are part of a larger unit, have culminated in a final activity where students are tasked with developing three policy recommendations to reduce the spread of the virus.

However, the models have faced challenges due to the constantly evolving nature of the virus. Several of the models have conflicted with recent death counts, and their projections have varied. The models have also had to contend with a large revision in the number of deaths believed to be caused by coronavirus in New York.

Despite these challenges, the models remain a valuable tool in understanding the potential impact of COVID-19 on the U.S. population. According to the Harvard team's moderate scenario, where 40% of the adult population contracts the disease over the course of a year, 98.9 million Americans would develop the coronavirus. However, many of these cases would have mild or no symptoms, and would not have their diagnoses confirmed by tests.

In most other scenarios where the virus spreads faster or infects more people, hospitals would quickly fill their available beds with patients. They would be forced to either expand capacity, limit elective surgeries and other non-necessary treatments, or make life-and-death decisions about care, similar to what has happened in the worst-hit regions of Italy.

One of the researchers who created the model cited by the administration, Dr. Ali Mokdad of the University of Washington's Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, is particularly worried about a state that isn't projected to handle the virus well. This highlights the importance of understanding the potential impact of the virus on different regions of the country.

While the models may not provide a perfect prediction of the future, they can help policymakers and individuals make informed decisions about how to respond to the pandemic. By playing with these models, students can gain a better understanding of the potential impact of COVID-19 on their community and develop strategies to mitigate its spread.
Title: Play with a Model of Coronavirus in the U.S: A Tool for Understanding and Mitigating the Spread of COVID-19

The University of Texas COVID-19 Modeling Consortium is at the forefront of providing crucial insights into the evolution of the pandemic in the United States. Lauren Ancel Meyers, a professor of integrative biology and statistics and data sciences leading the consortium, has developed a series of interactive models that not only help educators but also policymakers and the general public to understand the spread of COVID-19 in their communities. 

These models form part of a comprehensive educational unit that culminates in a project where students generate three policy recommendations to reduce the spread of the virus in their local area. However, as the models rely on a constantly evolving understanding of the virus, they frequently conflict with current death counts and can vary significantly in their projections. 

Recent adjustments to the death toll attributed to COVID-19 in New York have added an additional layer of complexity to the models. With the virus continuing to spread and mutate, it is increasingly difficult to forecast the pandemic's trajectory accurately. Despite this, the models remain indispensable tools for decision-makers and researchers like Dr. Ali Mokdad from the University of Washington's Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation.

In their "moderate scenario," a team from Harvard predicts that 40% of the adult population in the U.S. will contract the virus over the course of a year. This translates to approximately 98.9 million Americans, though many will have mild or no symptoms and will not test positive. 

However, in more severe scenarios where the virus spreads more rapidly or infects a higher percentage of the population, hospitals risk being overrun. In such cases, they must either expand capacity, delay elective surgeries, or make difficult decisions about patient care, reminiscent of the harrowing choices faced by doctors in the worst-hit regions of Italy. 

The interactive models developed by the UT COVID-19 Modeling Consortium and other research teams provide a crucial tool for understanding the evolution of the pandemic. By allowing users to manipulate variables, they help to identify potential strategies for mitigating the spread of the virus in their communities. This, in turn, can inform policy decisions and guide public health interventions.

Despite their limitations, the models serve as a reminder of the ongoing impact of COVID-19 on public health systems and the need for continued vigilance and investment in pandemic preparedness. With the virus continuing to mutate, it is essential that we continue to refine and adapt our models to stay ahead of the curve and protect the most vulnerable members of our society.
Title: Play with a Model of Coronavirus in the U.S.

A group of researchers, known as the "UT COVID-19 Modeling Consortium," led by Professor Lauren Ancel Meyers from the University of Texas, have developed a series of models to help students understand the coronavirus pandemic. These models aim to provide a comprehensive analysis of how the virus could spread throughout the U.S. depending on various factors such as social distancing, vaccination rates, and other policy recommendations. However, the models are not without their challenges, as they have faced criticism for conflicting with recent death counts and struggling to account for the large revision in the number of deaths believed to be caused by coronavirus in New York.

Dr. Ali Mokdad, a researcher at the University of Washington's Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, is particularly concerned about the models' ability to predict the impact of the virus on certain states. In a recent interview, Dr. Mokdad highlighted that the models have struggled to predict the impact of the virus on some states that are not projected to be hit as hard as others.

One model, developed by the Harvard team, suggests that in the moderate scenario, where 40% of the adult population contracts the disease over the course of a year, 98.9 million Americans would develop the coronavirus. While many may have mild or no symptoms, and will not have their diagnoses confirmed by tests, in most other scenarios where the virus spreads faster or infects more people, hospitals would quickly fill their available beds with patients, and they would be forced to either expand capacity, limit elective surgeries and other non-necessary treatments, or make life-and-death decisions about care, similar to what has happened in the worst-hit regions of Italy.

Despite the challenges faced by these models, they remain an important tool for policymakers and public health officials in understanding the potential impact of the virus on their communities. By developing policy recommendations based on these models, students can gain valuable insights into the complex factors that affect the spread of the virus and the measures needed to mitigate its impact. Ultimately, the models highlight the importance of continued vigilance and proactive measures to prevent the spread of the virus, particularly as new variants continue to emerge.
**"Play with a Model of Coronavirus in the U.S.: A Glimpse into the Future of the Pandemic"**

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to spread across the United States, researchers and policymakers are turning to modeling to predict the future of the outbreak. One such model, developed by the UT COVID-19 Modeling Consortium, is providing a unique glimpse into the potential trajectory of the virus.

The model, which is part of a larger unit that aims to educate students about the pandemic, allows users to simulate different scenarios and see how the virus spreads. According to Lauren Ancel Meyers, a professor of integrative biology and statistics and data sciences who is directing the effort, the model is designed to help students develop policy recommendations to reduce the spread of COVID-19 in their city or town.

But the model is not just for students. Researchers and policymakers are also using it to inform their decisions about how to respond to the pandemic. Dr. Ali Mokdad, a researcher at the University of Washington's Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, is one of the creators of the model. He expressed concerns about the potential for the virus to spread rapidly in certain states, citing the example of New York, where a large revision in the number of deaths believed to be caused by coronavirus has thrown off the model's projections.

According to the Harvard team's moderate scenario, where 40% of the adult population contracts the disease over the course of a year, 98.9 million Americans would develop the coronavirus. While many of these cases would be mild or asymptomatic, the sheer number of infections would put a strain on the healthcare system. Hospitals would quickly fill their available beds with patients, forcing them to either expand capacity, limit elective surgeries and other non-necessary treatments, or make life-and-death decisions about care.

The model also highlights the importance of social distancing measures in slowing the spread of the virus. By reducing the number of interactions between people, individuals can significantly reduce their risk of infection. This is particularly important in areas with high population density, where the virus can spread quickly.

The UT COVID-19 Modeling Consortium's model is just one of many being used to predict the future of the pandemic. While the models are not perfect, they provide a valuable tool for researchers and policymakers to inform their decisions. As the pandemic continues to evolve, it will be important to continue to refine and update these models to ensure that they accurately reflect the latest data and trends.

**Interactive Model:**

Want to play with the model and see how the virus spreads? The UT COVID-19 Modeling Consortium has made their model available online, allowing users to simulate different scenarios and see the results. Try it out and see how different policy interventions can impact the spread of the virus.

**Sources:**

* UT COVID-19 Modeling Consortium
* Harvard University
* University of Washington's Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation

**Related Stories:**

* "COVID-19 Model Predicts 98.9 Million Americans Will Contract Virus"
* "New York Revises Death Count, Throwing Off COVID-19 Model Projections"
* "Social Distancing Measures Key to Slowing Spread of COVID-19, Models Show"
**"Play with a Model of Coronavirus in the U.S.: A Glimpse into the Future of the Pandemic"**

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to spread across the United States, researchers and scientists are working tirelessly to develop models that can predict the trajectory of the virus. The UT COVID-19 Modeling Consortium, led by Professor Lauren Ancel Meyers, has created a series of interactive models that allow users to explore the potential spread of the virus under different scenarios.

The models, which are part of a larger educational unit, provide a unique opportunity for students and the general public to engage with the complex data and variables that drive the pandemic. By manipulating factors such as social distancing measures, vaccination rates, and population density, users can see how different interventions can impact the spread of the virus.

However, the models are not without their limitations. As Dr. Ali Mokdad, a researcher at the University of Washington's Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, notes, the models are only as good as the data that feeds them. Recent revisions to the number of deaths believed to be caused by coronavirus in New York have highlighted the challenges of working with incomplete and evolving information.

Despite these challenges, the models provide a valuable tool for policymakers and public health officials. The Harvard team's moderate scenario, which assumes that 40% of the adult population contracts the disease over the course of a year, predicts that 98.9 million Americans will develop the coronavirus. While many of these cases will be mild or asymptomatic, the sheer number of infections would still put a significant strain on the healthcare system.

In fact, the models suggest that hospitals would quickly fill their available beds with patients, forcing healthcare providers to make difficult decisions about care. This is a scenario that has already played out in regions of Italy, where doctors have been forced to prioritize patients based on their chances of survival.

The models also highlight the importance of social distancing measures in slowing the spread of the virus. By reducing the number of interactions between individuals, these measures can significantly reduce the number of new cases and alleviate pressure on the healthcare system.

As the pandemic continues to evolve, the UT COVID-19 Modeling Consortium's interactive models provide a valuable resource for understanding the complex dynamics at play. By exploring the different scenarios and interventions, users can gain a deeper appreciation for the challenges facing policymakers and public health officials, and the importance of continued vigilance in the face of this global health crisis.

**Try the model for yourself:**

The UT COVID-19 Modeling Consortium's interactive models are available online, allowing users to explore the potential spread of the virus under different scenarios. Visit their website to learn more and try the model for yourself.

**Key findings:**

* In the Harvard team's moderate scenario, 98.9 million Americans would develop the coronavirus over the course of a year.
* Hospitals would quickly fill their available beds with patients, forcing healthcare providers to make difficult decisions about care.
* Social distancing measures can significantly reduce the number of new cases and alleviate pressure on the healthcare system.
* The models highlight the importance of continued vigilance in the face of the pandemic, and the need for policymakers and public health officials to be prepared for different scenarios.
**Playing with a Model of Coronavirus in the U.S.: A Glimpse into the Future**

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to spread across the United States, researchers and policymakers are turning to mathematical models to predict the trajectory of the virus and inform decision-making. One such model, developed by the UT COVID-19 Modeling Consortium, is providing a unique glimpse into the potential future of the pandemic in the U.S.

Led by Dr. Lauren Ancel Meyers, a professor of integrative biology and statistics and data sciences, the consortium has created a model that simulates the spread of the virus under various scenarios. The model takes into account factors such as population density, mobility, and healthcare capacity to predict the number of cases, hospitalizations, and deaths.

According to the model's moderate scenario, where 40% of the adult population contracts the disease over the course of a year, 98.9 million Americans would develop the coronavirus. While many of these cases would be mild or asymptomatic, the model suggests that hospitals would still face significant challenges in coping with the surge in patients.

In this scenario, hospitals would quickly fill their available beds, forcing them to either expand capacity, limit elective surgeries and other non-necessary treatments, or make difficult decisions about who to prioritize for care. This is similar to what has happened in the worst-hit regions of Italy, where doctors have been forced to ration care due to overwhelming demand.

The model also highlights the importance of policy interventions in reducing the spread of the virus. By implementing measures such as social distancing, mask-wearing, and testing, policymakers can significantly reduce the number of cases and hospitalizations.

However, the model is not without its limitations. The coronavirus is a complex and rapidly evolving disease, and there is still much that is not known about its transmission and severity. As a result, the model's projections are subject to a high degree of uncertainty, and different models have produced conflicting results.

Despite these limitations, the UT COVID-19 Modeling Consortium's model provides a valuable tool for policymakers and researchers seeking to understand the potential trajectory of the pandemic. By exploring different scenarios and testing the impact of various policy interventions, the model can help inform decision-making and reduce the spread of the virus.

As Dr. Meyers noted, "Our model is not a crystal ball, but it can provide a useful framework for thinking about the potential consequences of different policy choices. By working together and using the best available data and models, we can reduce the impact of the pandemic and save lives."

The model is part of a larger unit that ended with a culminating activity in which students developed three policy recommendations to reduce the spread of COVID-19 in their city or town. The recommendations included increasing testing and contact tracing, implementing stricter social distancing measures, and providing additional support for vulnerable populations.

As the pandemic continues to evolve, models like the one developed by the UT COVID-19 Modeling Consortium will play an increasingly important role in informing policy decisions and reducing the spread of the virus. By working together and using the best available data and models, we can reduce the impact of the pandemic and build a safer, healthier future for all.
**"Playing with Projections: Interactive Model Allows Americans to Explore COVID-19 Spread in the U.S."**

A new interactive model of the coronavirus pandemic is giving Americans a unique opportunity to explore the potential spread of the disease in the United States. The model, developed by a team of researchers at the University of Texas, allows users to adjust various parameters and see how they impact the projected course of the pandemic.

The model is part of a larger effort by the UT COVID-19 Modeling Consortium, led by Professor Lauren Ancel Meyers, to help policymakers and the public understand the potential trajectories of the pandemic. The model takes into account various factors, including the number of people infected, hospital capacity, and the effectiveness of social distancing measures.

According to the model's moderate scenario, in which 40% of the adult population contracts the disease over the course of a year, approximately 98.9 million Americans would develop the coronavirus. While many of these cases would be mild or asymptomatic, the model suggests that hospitals would still face significant challenges in treating the large number of patients.

Users of the model can adjust various parameters, such as the percentage of people who contract the disease, the number of hospital beds available, and the effectiveness of social distancing measures. This allows them to see how different scenarios play out and how various policy decisions could impact the spread of the disease.

For example, if the percentage of people who contract the disease increases to 60%, the model suggests that hospitals would quickly become overwhelmed, with many patients being forced to wait for treatment or being turned away altogether.

The model also highlights the importance of social distancing measures in reducing the spread of the disease. If these measures are implemented effectively, the model suggests that the number of cases could be significantly reduced, and the strain on hospitals could be eased.

While the model is not a crystal ball, and its projections are subject to a high degree of uncertainty, it provides a valuable tool for policymakers and the public to understand the potential consequences of different policy decisions.

As Dr. Ali Mokdad, a researcher at the University of Washington's Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, noted, "Models like this one are essential for helping us understand the potential spread of the disease and making informed decisions about how to respond."

The model is available online and can be accessed by anyone interested in exploring the potential spread of the coronavirus in the United States.

**Interactive Model:**

* Try adjusting the parameters to see how different scenarios play out
* Explore the impact of social distancing measures on the spread of the disease
* See how different policy decisions could impact the number of cases and hospital capacity

**Methodology:**

The model uses a combination of data sources, including reported cases, hospitalization rates, and demographic information. It also takes into account various assumptions about the transmission of the disease and the effectiveness of social distancing measures. The model is updated regularly to reflect new data and research.

**Limitations:**

While the model provides a valuable tool for understanding the potential spread of the disease, it is subject to a high degree of uncertainty. The model's projections are based on a number of assumptions and simplifications, and should not be taken as predictions of actual events.
**New Interactive Model Allows Americans to Play with Coronavirus Scenarios in the US**

AUSTIN, TEXAS - As the US continues to grapple with the spread of COVID-19, researchers at the University of Texas's COVID-19 Modeling Consortium have developed an innovative tool that allows individuals to play with different scenarios of the virus's spread in the country. The interactive model, led by Professor Lauren Ancel Meyers, enables users to input various parameters and see how different policy interventions could impact the spread of the disease.

According to Dr. Meyers, "Our goal is to provide a valuable resource for policymakers, public health officials, and the general public to understand the complexities of the pandemic and the potential consequences of different actions." She emphasizes that the model is not meant to be a crystal ball but rather a tool to facilitate informed discussions and decision-making.

The model is built on a moderate scenario where 40% of the adult population contracts the disease over the course of a year, resulting in approximately 98.9 million Americans developing the coronavirus. However, users can adjust this parameter to explore different scenarios, including ones where the virus spreads faster or infects more people.

Dr. Ali Mokdad from the University of Washington's Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, whose research is also used by the administration, expressed concern about the uncertainty surrounding the models. "While we've made significant strides in understanding the virus, there's still much we don't know. We need to be cautious when interpreting the results of these models and be prepared for the worst-case scenarios."

Using the model, users can explore the impact of different policies, such as social distancing, mask-wearing, and vaccination rates, on the spread of the disease. They can also examine how different regions in the US might be affected, including those with varying population densities and healthcare capacities.

The Harvard team's model also highlights the potential strain on the healthcare system in the US. In most scenarios, hospitals would quickly fill their available beds, leading to difficult decisions about care and treatment. This echoes the dire situation in Italy, where doctors have had to make life-or-death decisions about which patients to treat.

As the US continues to navigate the pandemic, tools like this interactive model will become increasingly important in informing policy decisions and individual actions. By allowing Americans to play with different scenarios and explore the potential consequences, researchers hope to promote a deeper understanding of the complexities of COVID-19 and the importance of collective action in mitigating its spread.

**Try the model for yourself:**

Visit the UT COVID-19 Modeling Consortium website to access the interactive model and explore different scenarios of the virus's spread in the US.

**Sources:**

* UT COVID-19 Modeling Consortium
* Harvard University COVID-19 Research Team
* University of Washington's Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation