This aged well. R0 really is a thing.

I mean, I shouldn't have to spell out the doctor obvious clause but sure.

Growing immunity would play a factor in the probability of infection, which in turn, lowers the growth factor (in this case, multiplier).

We are not even remotely close to achieving herd immunity, and most drugs at present are hail mary solutions.

You're reading an awful lot into "more or less accurate and useful." Next you're going to tell me
that the statement "this building will burn down if the fire department doesn't put it out" is inaccurate if the fire department puts it out.

Also, being close to 1.5 million infections worldwide is pretty much on par if not exceeding exponential growth models I was looking at a month ago. Some places have changed their strategy, some not enough, and some not at all.

Ontological accuracy is a very nebulous phrasing--I'm fully in materialist "natural philosophy" here, not comparing platonic substances with real world instances or taking a metaphysical stance on mathematical nominalism or dualism.

But that is irrelevant to your larger point, as data driving projections has nothing to do with the above.

The whole point of the early models was to illustrate what could potentially happen if nothing was done. Which is also the point of this meme, as plenty of people have opposed changing social interactions on the grounds that "it's only killed a few people" (increase that by a multiplier every week or two).