Strange Note Raises Question: Are The Walz Covid Models Intentionally Flawed?

An unexplained note included in a slideshow presentation released by the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) has some concerned citizens questioning the accuracy of the models used to justify the extended shutdown.

An unexplained note included in a slideshow presentation released by the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) has some concerned citizens questioning the accuracy of the models used to justify the extended shutdown.

The University of Minnesota (UMN) has produced mathematical models designed to foretell the spread of coronavirus and serve as justification for the governor’s actions to quell the pandemic.

However, concerned citizens have spotted what appears to be a strange note leftover from an earlier draft written by either the University or MDH. Some claim this to be evidence that the modeling process lacks integrity or is bias towards a certain outcome.

“For consideration: model the outcome and work back from it?” the note reads.

Note the bolded bullet item that begins “for consideration…” Some believe this is evidence that state officials have been cooking the books when it comes to modeling the impact of COVID-19 in Minnesota.

Minnesota State Senator Roger Chamberlain chimed in shortly after this unusual note was first highlighted online asking a question about what it might mean.

State Representative Jeremy Munson also commented, saying that the the new 2.0 models, are “sloppy.” He claims the updated model as proof that state officials are “desperately trying to find a way to justify their destructive ‘stay at home order’ that is destroying jobs and the economy.”

Citizens are just as concerned with how the Walz administration is using the new models as state leaders.

“Leftover comment in slides shows MDH is giving UMN modellers the outcome and asking them to work backwards,” one Minnesotan claimed via Twitter.

“Is the Minnesota model based upon guessing outcomes and working the model to meet the preconceived result?” asks another.

The ultimate conclusion of the new models seems to be that “extended social distancing” will have a measurably favorable impact on Minnesota ICU demand transmission compared to other less drastic approaches.

Slide 17 of the presentation illustrates the favorable effect of more social distancing. Skeptics, emboldened by the strange note on slide 12 cast doubt on this conclusion.

UMN first unveiled its first predictive models in April. At that time, the numbers predicted that less than one one hundredth of one percent (<.01%) of populations under the age of 60 will die of the virus. This prediction appears to have been at least roughly correct as the overwhelming majority, as many as 99.24%, of COVID-19 related deaths in Minnesota have occured in nursing homes or in relation to a severe underlying condition.

As of the first of this month, Minnesota had paid over $1,500,000 to the UMN for the models.