How Computer Modelers Took On the Ebola Outbreak
spectrum.ieee.org
spectrum.ieee.org
Yet DTRA is also very familiar with the need to base decisions on the best information available at the time the decision has to be made. It's hard to imagine they weren't happy to have even shaky predictions at their disposal.
These guys live in a very different world to most of us. At one point my research group was developing rules of thumb for first responders in the event of a release of a chemical/biological agent in or near a building. We vacillated on certain aspects of the advice, because no matter what guidelines we proposed, we could always think of a scenario in which that was the worst possible thing for a first responder to do.
Our indecision finally got broken when a group member talked to a professional trainer of police. He flat-out stated (in paraphrase) "You don't have to be right 100% of the time. If you are right 51% of the time, that's better than having the guys on the ground making things up as they go along."
The long-term predictions were always provided as "no way this can happen" but if nothing changes about people's behaviors, and these trends continue, this is what the world would look like. Always meant as a guide to how serious the problem we were facing was, never as an actual prediction.
I second @dmlorenzetti and their comment. Real-time support of decision making and guiding policies is more about rough estimates of things being better or worse and if your lucky a way to rank the possible actions on that scale. Decision-makers are grateful for any qualifications and estimations they can get in the uncertain world which they are operating in.