Imperial College forecast of Sweden deaths without a lockdown

Don't know what Neil Ferguson will be doing when this is all over but surely his days modelling pandemics are done.

back to modelling train sets

2005 " Up to 200 million could be killed from bird flu."
Total deaths: 282

2009 Swine Flu , "A reasonable worst case scenario would be 65,000 deaths in the UK."
Total deaths: 457

2001 Foot and mouth , Modelling lead to the culling of 6,000,000 cattle , pigs and sheep .
Cost to the UK economy: £10 billion

2002 "Between 50 and 50,000 would likely die from BSE .
Total deaths: 177

And that is The man we are listening to ?

May 4, 2020 -- 11:56PM, tobermory wrote:

Don't know what Neil Ferguson will be doing when this is all over but surely his days modelling pandemics are done.

He's modelled that he will be earning millions of pounds...so probably homeless.

tobermory- do you have a link please?

Why isn’t the MSM talking about this?

its bad enough that he has the face to keep coming back after being so wrong but even worse they still listen to him.

Was it no lock down or doing nothing he got the 96,000 deaths?

They have take basic social distancing methods.

Clearly his model forecasts were wrong again and policy formed off it cost billions a day.

Boris, Trump and others were spooked by his forecasts.

Also Sweden has no problems of second waves or working out how to come out of lockdown.

Listen to how he laughs at Sweden's approach on this interview last week...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cYjjEB3Ev8

Interview with the Swedish guy who claims all countries will end up with similar results in a year or two....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfN2JWifLCY

Independent Sage set up by ex Government adviser David King

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqqwC56XTP8F9zeEUCOttPQ/videos

Ferguson did not model Sweden.

They have not released the original code or inputs so hard to actually remodel it for Sweden.

This is the paper that tried to use Ferguson methods

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.11.20062133v1.full.pdf

This is an article that talks about it:

https://www.aier.org/article/imperial-college-model-applied-to-sweden-yields-preposterous-results/

The Uppsala team’s presentation appears to closely follow the ICL approach. They presented a projection for an “unmitigated” response (also known as the “do nothing” scenario in the ICL paper), then modeled the predicted effects of a variety of policy interventions. These included staying the course on the government’s alternative approach of remaining open with milder social distancing guidelines, as well as implementing varying degrees of a lockdown.

The model stressed its own urgency as well. Sweden would have to adopt a lockdown policy similar to the rest of Europe immediately if it wished to avert catastrophe. As the authors explained, under “conservative” estimates using their model “the current Swedish public-health strategy will result in a peak intensive-care load in May that exceeds pre-pandemic capacity by over 40-fold, with a median mortality of 96,000 (95% CI 52,000 to 183,000)” being realized by the end of June.

Their proposed mitigation scenarios, which followed lockdown strategies similar to those recommended in the ICL paper and adopted elsewhere in Europe, were “predicted to reduce mortality by approximately three-fold” while also averting a catastrophic failure of the Swedish healthcare system.

The authors of the paper expressed sincere concerns for limiting the damage done by a genuinely horrendous disease, and they released their study in the hope that it would better inform the policy response. Its predictions have already failed to play out though – and badly failed at that.

Resentment of Sweden by the Worlds lockdown fanatics is growing by the day.

‘Never has so much harm been wished on so few by so many’

^^thanks IT, at least you are learning to ask for the source of the forum's dimwits' claims.  No doubt tobermory will be along to apologise for posting nonsense.

https://www.aier.org/article/imperial-college-model-applied-to-sweden-yields-preposterous-results/

is this the link?

That is a link to a website article which is a commentary.

This is the link to the research....
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.11.20062133v1.full.pdf

We have over 50,000 deaths in uk because we locked down too late

Everything else is just tory spin including traitor threads like this one trying to hide the mess these tories had made.

Did Sweden lock down too late?

Thanks Darren. From your  link:


As the authors explained, under “conservative” estimates using their model “the current Swedish public-health strategy will result in a peak intensive-care load in May that exceeds pre-pandemic capacity by over 40-fold, with a median mortality of 96,000 (95% CI 52,000 to 183,000)” being realized by the end of June.

As above

Everything else is tory spin

And more:

The Swedish model laid out its predicted death and hospitalization rates for competing policy scenarios in a series of graphs. According to their projections (shown below in blue), the current Swedish government’s response – if permitted to continue – would pass 40,000 deaths shortly after May 1, 2020 and continue to rise to almost 100,000 deaths by June.

Risable..

Cheers IT. I see now you posted it too.

The more you look into it, the more Ferguson and Imperial College come across as a bunch of over-estimating guessers

Were the Swedish model backers (NOW) on the forum on board when we were going down our path?

Good to see Vallance finally hinting that early testing wasn't good enough and that our lockdown may well have been better earlier.

The dithering from around 9th march by which time community testing was not deemed feasible to march 23rd lockdown has always given me a problem.

Boris was quoted as saying we were fully geared up for a pandemic and our testing capability was excellent.

Insider Trader when did you jump aboard and get behind the Swedish experiment. This was seen by many of the countries own scientists as a poorly conceived course of action not strict enough. Very few other countries were considering it.

Great to look back now and say it was a no brainer.

I wasn't posting back in march so I thought I'd have a look back around and just before our lockdown to see what people were saying on here.

I didn't see too many saying we had it wrong in fact Insider Trader I saw you post that USA needed a 'Boris style lockdown' to regain control or they'd have a big problem and that Spain and Italy were being too lax with who they were allowing out to work?

Is this fair?

No problem with someone changing their view, in fact in such a situation with so much unknown this is what many will be doing. The problem would be when subsequent knowledge  is presented as a previous path being a no brainer after initially not saying it.

May 5, 2020 -- 12:41PM, Hanx wrote:

The more you look into it, the more Ferguson and Imperial College come across as a bunch of over-estimating guessers

Hanx, are you aware that the report provided a range of scenarios and a range of outcomes ?
And are you aware of the range of outcomes it provided should a full range of mitigating measures be implemented ?

Iniitally I trusted the government back by the scientists.

I would have to look back to exactly when I started see the errors with Ferguson and his history and see what was happening in Sweden.

The point is people like Boris, Trump and our scientists are so welded to their lockdown policy due to this paper it would be very hard for them to back track now. Their reputations almost depend on Sweden having a bad time.

No problem with that Insider Trader.

Is it possible that your starting point impacts the measures that you will require to apply ?
Can you directly compare London, New York, Stockholm, Port Harcourt ?

Sweden has had a bad time compared to its neighbours

UK are worst in Europe by some way

Trading off some half baked idea against some info taken out of context to make a spurious point will not bring back 20k plus UK citizens killed by tory dithering

May 5, 2020 -- 11:21AM, Injera wrote:

And more:The Swedish model laid out its predicted death and hospitalization rates for competing policy scenarios in a series of graphs. According to their projections (shown below in blue), the current Swedish government’s response – if permitted to continue – would pass 40,000 deaths shortly after May 1, 2020 and continue to rise to almost 100,000 deaths by June.Risable..

what is risable (sic)?

That they made up their own model, guessing about what another model might say and blaming any poor results on the other model?

Angoose

I thought initially the starting point was the be all and end all and why it was probably a must for us to be so strict. I definitely still think that our poor early testing ability/capacity put us on the backfoot that other countries did not experience in the same way. Also the 2 week period from myself not being able to get a test in the community on 9th march to lockdown (albeit some recommendations given out week earlier) may have been a dithering wasted opportunity to lockdown sooner.

I'm not sure now though that we actually needed these extensive measures and some of Insider Traders sources posted have suggested possibly that social distancing measures may have been enough with proper shielding of the vulnerable (which blatantly has proven to be very difficult!).

So yes I think we couldn't or didn't act in the best way initially but I'm not convinced the economy needed such a shutdown. This is hindsight though.

Trump and Bojo gambled early on that the virus was essentially "just bad Flu"..the herd mentality is an accepted response.. if they were correct their economies would have gained a big advantage over other countries who chose the lockdown approach.
As it turns out their gamble has been a gigantic FAIL..ffs how long did the Italians tell us to wise the f up?..We knew better.

May 5, 2020 -- 1:30PM, stridingedge wrote:

AngooseI thought initially the starting point was the be all and end all and why it was probably a must for us to be so strict. I definitely still think that our poor early testing ability/capacity put us on the backfoot that other countries did not experience in the same way. Also the 2 week period from myself not being able to get a test in the community on 9th march to lockdown (albeit some recommendations given out week earlier) may have been a dithering wasted opportunity to lockdown sooner.I'm not sure now though that we actually needed these extensive measures and some of Insider Traders sources posted have suggested possibly that social distancing measures may have been enough with proper shielding of the vulnerable (which blatantly has proven to be very difficult!).So yes I think we couldn't or didn't act in the best way initially but I'm not convinced the economy needed such a shutdown. This is hindsight though.

I prepared a response and went to post it only for my internet connection to drop

May 5, 2020 -- 9:47AM, dave1357 wrote:

^^thanks IT, at least you are learning to ask for the source of the forum's dimwits' claims.

Imperial College said Sweden's R rate would be 3 to 4 with only social distancing measures.Every infected person passing it on to 3 or 4 others. Using their model this would give 96,000 dead by July. Sweden's R rate is apparently 0.85 as of last week.

Imperial College said Sweden's R rate would be 3 to 4 with only social distancing measures.


link please

also link to IC saying everything in your OP

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-Europe-estimates-and-NPI-impact-30-03-2020.pdf


Scroll down to 7/35 and there is a table showing every nation's R rate falling to below 1 in their model, except Sweden.


The estimated reproduction number for Sweden is higher,
not because the mortality trends are significantly different from any other country, but as an artefact
of our model, which assumes a smaller reduction in Rt because no full lockdown has been ordered so
far.

May 5, 2020 -- 11:01AM, ----you-have-to-laugh--- wrote:

We have over 50,000 deaths in uk because we locked down too lateEverything else is just tory spin including traitor threads like this one trying to hide the mess these tories had made.

There is no evidence for this assertion. Actually, from within the UK, there is mounting evidence that areas locking down with hardly any cases will still catch up to areas that only locked down with significant outbreaks. So it seems unlikely that a UK lockdown on the same day as Italy, March 9th (not that I recall many people asking for one) would have prevented us getting the case numbers/deaths we did.

It's sad that you choose to remain ignorant

Choose austerity

Choose ignorance

Choose clowns

Ignorant of what ?

I don't 'support the Government', I don't think they know what they are doing tbh, nor do Governments in other nations.

I just don't blame any of them for the death numbers.

It increasingly seems this disease was seeded here before it even had a name, and it just runs it's course regardless, perhaps being slowed down by lockdown measures, but everywhere eventually ending up with the numbers they would have gotten without a lockdown.

So it spreads by magic?

Every country showing uniform outcome with only variation for ethnicity,  age, underlying health conditions?

I think variation between countries will be to do with where they rank in terms various factors, perhaps the biggest being where they rank in terms of international travel.

Of course if no one with the disease was ever let in to the country then you keep it out. But it increasingly looks like it was established here way before anyone was worried about it. Maybe a lockdown in mid January could have stopped the spread. Once there are enough unknown, asymptomatic cases, then it will just run it's course and counter measures can only slow the spread.

That is my reading of the situation anyway.

Perhaps temperature will be found to be another factor in the final analysis. I read in March that a Chinese study indicated the virus spreads best in a 'goldilocks zone' and struggles when it is too hot or cold, and that Western European winter was the ideal. I have not heard if that study was confirmed or refuted, but the anticipated devastation of (warmer) 3rd world countries has not materialized yet.

Government have to react to what is going in

They cannot be blamed for the virus, that is a fact.

But they got lockdown timing badly wrong, and left old folk to die without option of hospital treatnent

2 errors they are guilty of

If you are going back that far Tobes the implication would be that there must have been deaths a lot earlier here that weren't attributed to CV?

Perhaps this is why are poor initial testing capacity soon hit the buffers as you say the seeding was a lot earlier.

Perhaps on the plus side the percentage infected is now considerably higher than much of the estimates have been.

* that have been infected overall

May 5, 2020 -- 2:21PM, tobermory wrote:

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-Europe-estimates-and-NPI-impact-30-03-2020.pdfScroll down to 7/35 and there is a table showing every nation's R rate falling to below 1 in their model, except Sweden.The estimated reproduction number for Sweden is higher,not because the mortality trends are significantly different from any other country, but as an artefactof our model, which assumes a smaller reduction in Rt because no full lockdown has been ordered sofar.

By May 1st - 40,000

By July 1st - 96,000 

I can't see that anywhere on that document  - what page is it?

Dave, the document with those figures has been linked already by a couple of people. The scientists that produced it were using the ICL modelling assumptions to come up with those numbers. They reference Ferguson's paper in their index.

It's fair to point out that ICL did not directly say in any paper that Sweden would have 40,000 etc deaths by now. So I'm sorry to give that impression in the opening post.

But the ICL model being the basis for the 96,000 prediction seems pretty clear all the same.

Hanx, are you aware that the report provided a range of scenarios and a range of outcomes ?
And are you aware of the range of outcomes it provided should a full range of mitigating measures be implemented ?

Yup.

Are you aware experts such as John Ioannidis, (Professor in disease prevention at Stanford University), has said that: ‘The Imperial College modelling (shows) some of the major assumptions and estimates that are built in the calculations seem to be substantially inflated.’ Furthermore I cannot find any evidence for peer-review of this work

.....and that's before you get onto the fact that IC's model of the Covid-19 disease is based on undocumented, 13-year-old computer code, that was intended to be used for a feared influenza pandemic, rather than coronavirus.

^^As pointed out by IT, you and they don't know the precise details of ICL's model.

Incidentally as I have stated elsewhere the most important metric is hospitalization not specifically deaths as the strain on health resources of the additional burden has a huge impact on society.

No strain on the health service except in small localised areas.

Most people I have spoken who work in hospitals are extremely quiet.

We have mothballed the Excel centre as not enough patients.

Italy was overrun at points in local areas and everyone said it was awful. Reality is we have as many deaths and we never overrun.

Because we did not admit old folk to hospitals

Left to die in care homes

And you seem to have pride in that

No pride at all.

The initial policy of shielding the vulnerable and elderly and everyone else have good hygiene and social distance would have allowed for the minds to be focused on that one task.

Instead the government and health and social care secretary, in particular, got distracted building and opening his shinny new hospital to show off how fast he could do it.

Italy have about the same number of hospitals, same number of cases, same number of deaths, it hit at the same time more or less

How were they overrun and we weren't?

They were not shielded

My uncles care home locked down weeks before government advice


Other care homes around here reporting terrible death numbers

No lockdown... No hospital treatment

But hospitals never overflowed...

They had a very high concentration in heavily polluted areas in the North.

We had a very high concentration in heavily polluted area called London

The old in these care homes have been allowed to die that much was obvious from day 1

----you-have-to-laugh---
05 May 20 15:52
Joined: 06 Jul 10
| Topic/replies: 7,732 | Blogger: ----you-have-to-laugh---'s blog
They were not shielded

My uncles care home locked down weeks before government advice


Other care homes around here reporting terrible death numbers

No lockdown... No hospital treatment

But hospitals never overflowed...

^

I agree they should have been shielded.

Think lockdown is costing $3.5bn a day. With that we could have paid to have all carers/cleaners etc on site or in hotels and tested. They should never have had so many people in and out.

Every country messed this up. Half deaths in care homes in Europe. Instead of lockdown if we had focused on these deaths would have been far fewer.

dunno, maybe it was to pad the numbers quickly, but it still contradicts everything they've done because out of the deaths 95+% of them have been elderly

They can't even hide that anymore so they just don't mention it

I think its becoming more and more obvious this was to hide the economic collapse and the birth of their brave new world

Think lockdown is costing $3.5bn a day

The means of production are still there and lost production can be made up.  The problem is the debt that businesses and individuals have built up and the associated payments.