The 3 most widely cited models forecasting the end of civilizations come from Imperial, Harvard, and Washington. We knew their modeling assumptions were wrong from the beginning. How do we know their modelling assumptions are wrong and why were those models cited? Simple 1/n

Those are known elite universities are in major media centers. Those papers got into the right hands. Why weren't other papers that had been done doing similar forecasts or refuting their assumptions covered and then ignored and then shouted down? Because those papers 2/n

Were written by researchers in countries that major media center journalists have only seen on a National Geographic special. Doctors, epidemiologists, mathematicians, and others in countries like China, South Korea, Iran, and Italy were churning out research that directly 3/n

contradicted the foundational assumptions or provided different forecasts of those papers. However, they were not in major media centers. They did not know the journalists. They were on a narrow aspect of what was happening. Those papers fed the narrative even though we 4/n

Knew those forecasts were built on sand. Science, experts, and journalists depend on getting it right. There was zero interest in getting right by enormous number of people but rather feeding a story. Maybe at some point getting it right should be the focus rather than the story