He lowered it from 40-70% to 20-60%, hardly a qualitative change. The fact is that under essentially any epidemiological model, if you have R0 > 1 and no countermeasures, it's going to hit a sizable fraction of the world population, because the exponential growth only gets stopped by running out of victims.
But the point of this thread is discussing why countermeasures are justified. I'm saying that you should expect a disaster if no countermeasures are deployed -- which is exactly what you're saying too.
The subject of this whole discussion is that there's a travel restriction being put in place. This is why I believe promoting numbers that were arrived at prematurely (I would argue unethically, with the intention of being 'first' in the news) and that specifically don't account for countermeasures to be a bad idea.
We should be trying to promote risk assessments that are situationally correct.
