neb:tdgeek:Because he's looking at very different scenarios. Again if he was a politician he'd say "We have it totally under control. It’s one person coming in from China, and we have it under control. It’s going to be just fine. The Coronavirus is very much under control in the USA. … Stock Market starting to look very good to me!". Since he's been asked for his expert opinion as a scientist and not a sound bite as a politician, he's given various outcomes under various conditions, e.g. if we do nothing we get this, if we do this but not that we get this, and so on.
He ranges between we will end this in 14 days apart from maybe 1 or 2, to 80000 deaths. His miracle eradication in 2 weeks is hardly cautious, and his 80000 deaths is obviously and clearly looking at a scenario that will not exist. If he was a weatherman it will be between-39 and 48 C today, calm or windy
I hear what you are saying but two extremes doesnt cut it. Giving a responsible result based on the now, with what we are doiing and might do (well or not so well) would have added value. He didnt do that, just gave big numbers and a masisve result in a matter of days. No.