Indeed Jolly,

https://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/30/health/estimates-of-future-human-death-toll-from-mad-cow-disease-vary-widely.html

But Dr. Neil Ferguson, an epidemiologist in another group of highly respected researchers led by Dr. Roy Anderson at Imperial College in London, said the new estimates were ''unjustifiably optimistic.'' His group published estimates a year ago predicting that the number of variant C.J.D. cases might reach 136,000 in coming decades.


Total death toll from v-cjd was 177 in the UK by 2017.

How?

They most have got some other things correct I guess.

It's not science in a laboratory setting, it's in the big wide world with lots of irrational human behavior.

He wont share his code??!

What a disgrace.

Third, the models themselves are only a simplified version of reality. They cannot reflect the complications of different situations in which people get infected or infect others. Capturing the specific characteristics of a society, and of sub-sections of that society, such as church-goers or football fans, is always going to be difficult.

The modellers at Imperial have made some best guesses at all of these factors. Other research teams have made different assumptions to guess at how the virus might progress. For example, one group at the University of Oxford speculates, on the basis of their own model, that half the population of the UK may already have the virus. The lead author, Professor Suneptra Gupta, said: “I am surprised that there has been such unqualified acceptance of the Imperial model.” Forecasts for how many people might die could swing wildly depending on relatively small variations in these assumptions.

Although these difficulties afflict all modelling, there has been particular criticism in recent days of Professor Ferguson's track record. He worked on initial estimates for the possible death toll of variant-CJD, aka the “human form of mad cow disease,” in 1996, estimating with others a range from 50 deaths to 50,000. But these were far from the most lurid estimates for a disease that has actually killed just 176 people. During the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) in 2001, his estimates led to a far wider cull of animals than previously thought necessary, ultimately costing the economy an estimated £10 billion.

One critic, Michael Thrusfield, professor of veterinary epidemiology at Edinburgh University, has since written two papers that are highly critical of the research led by Ferguson on FMD. One of the papers, from 2006, argues that “the models were not fit for the purpose of predicting the course of the epidemic and the effects of control measures. The models also remain unvalidated. Their use in predicting the effects of control strategies was therefore imprudent.”

Another academic critic, Dr Paul Kitching, told The Telegraph: “In view of the low numbers of Covid-19 tests being reported as carried out in affected countries, it is difficult to understand what informs the current models. In particular the transmission rate. How many mild and subclinical infections are occurring?”

Ferguson has responded to the FMD criticism, saying: “We were doing modelling in real time as the other groups were in 2001 — certainly the models weren’t 100% right, certainly with limited data and limited time to do the work. But I think the broad conclusions reached were still valid.”

The real problem is the way that models are latched on to at a time when information is very limited. They take on a life of their own, rather than being treated as preliminary estimates, feeding into a sense that we should always prepare for the worst-case scenario rather than the most realistic one. Interestingly, the government has delayed introducing tests for the disease until they are proven to be accurate. So why is it apparently relying on models that haven't been tested?

But while criticism of Ferguson may be valid, he is right to point out that his work is just one line of expertise and argument feeding into policy. There are plenty of others, too, from behavioral scientists to economists and, of course, political voices. It wasn't Ferguson who made the decision to focus on short-term deaths rather than long-term harms to society from suppression measures. On what basis was that decision made? Has the government made any attempt to model the harm that could be caused — to the economy, to health, to education, to the general social fabric — of an extended lockdown? If so, where is this research?

Governments are also faced with a moral dilemma: how to balance different kinds of harm. For example, it is clear that Covid-19 is particularly lethal to the elderly and those with serious health problems already. Even Ferguson has admitted that two-thirds of those who would die without suppression policies could be dead by the end of the year anyway. Are we hobbling society for years to come in order to buy some of its members a few more weeks and months?

From the outside, it looks like the government had a plausible mitigation strategy, but then panicked under pressure from the media and members of its own party to adopt a more draconian policy. If Ferguson is right, senior politicians will congratulate themselves on listening to the experts. If Ferguson is wrong, he may end up being the fall guy.

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/484622-expert-behind-covid-19-shutdown/

Ferguson has responded to the FMD criticism, saying: “We were doing modelling in real time as the other groups were in 2001 — certainly the models weren’t 100% right, certainly with limited data and limited time to do the work. But I think the broad conclusions reached were still valid.”

He predicted 100k and the total was under 200!

He cost the country £10bn!

maybe we should put mystic meg in charge of modelling

if he is the best, what do the records of the others look like

My betting systems usually have an ensemble of 100-200 models to pick a value selection.

Maybe instead of using him they should have put the data on Kaggle and got a wide range of views rather than just this one guy.

Our fogures don't make sense average cases in care homes between 45 -54% of deaths,if you applied that to our figures we should have 5400 extra at least yet we are sitting on 2200 which obviously can't all be from corona..We have have been sending them back to homes with the virus and infecting others,yet this isn't showing up in the figures,totally out of line with all other countries.
The next set of figures would need to show a 4,000 rise at least very very strange.