Another source of confusion is the value of computer models in anticipating the virus’s path. Besser said CDC has used models to look at questions such as the value of closing borders but stressed that they had their limits. “As many modelers as you have, you’ll have that number of estimates,” he said. Nicoll said that at this stage, we don’t know enough about this virus to reliably model it. Even so, that hasn’t stopped “everybody, at this point” from seeking modeling data, he noted.

I have also heard what Jon Frum refers to. Weather is one of the most popular segments on local news, and no station can afford, ratings-wise, to have a shorter prediction as they will lose viewers.

The irony is that while having a weather prediction for only a few days hurts ratings, most people know that 7-day forecasts are highly unreliable.

Maybe the news should switch to climate forecasts instead of weather, since climate is easier to predict . . .

Regarding forcasts: Here in Boston, a long-time television metereologist retired years ago. Some time later, in a radio interview, he told why he left television. A twenty-something “consultant told him to do five-day forecasts. When he told the kid that no meterologist in the world could do five day forecasts in Boston, he was told that if he wouldn’t do it, they’d find someone who would. That’s when he quit. Now, they do seven-day forecasts.

Isn’t it remarkable that they keep doing the seven-day forecasts, but they never review their past predictions? Each day, at each television station, the previous day’s forecast goes into the memory hole.