Chit Chat
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Ross Clark - The Spectator
Since mid-March there has been an assumption that herd immunity against Covid-19 would not be achieved until around 60 per cent of the population has been infected. It is a figure which gave rise to the now-famous paper by Professor Neil Ferguson of Imperial College, which claimed that a herd immunity policy (which the government denies ever following) would result in the deaths of 250,000 people in Britain. That figure has been challenged by scientists who have questioned some of the assumptions behind it – for example, it assumed a mortality rate of 0.9 per cent which Imperial College itself has since revised downwards to 0.66 per cent, and some believe is lower still.
But today comes another challenge. A team led by Gabriela Gomes of the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine argues that it is wrong to assume that herd immunity will only be achieved when 60 per cent of people have been infected. It is more likely, they argue, that the true figure lies between 10 and 20 per cent. The 60 per cent figure, they say, is based on the idea that we are all equally likely to contract the virus. In reality, there is a wide variation in an individual’s susceptibility to becoming infected. People who are frail or who have greater exposure to the virus – perhaps because they are working in an intensive care unit – are in practice far more likely to contract the disease. As the epidemic progresses the pool of easily-infected individuals dries up and the virus has to search out new victims who are less-easily infected.
Modelling by Gomes’ team aims to calculate the ‘coefficient of variation’, which quantifies the variability in individuals’ susceptibility to the virus – with zero denoting no variability at all (ie we are equally likely to be infected). If this coefficient really were zero, say the scientists, then herd immunity would only be achieved when over 60 percent of the population has been infected. If the coefficient were four, on the other hand, it would be achieved when 10 per cent of us were infected. The team then looked at real-life data to try to deduce what the coefficient of variation really is and concluded that it is in the range of just under two to just over three. That would mean herd immunity could be achieved when between 10 and 20 per cent of us have been infected.
The usual health warnings apply. Gomes’ work is theoretical modelling and, in common with a lot of material on Covid-19 that is being pre-published at the moment (including Ferguson’s paper of 16 March), it has not been peer-reviewed. But it is interesting that it gives an estimate for herd immunity of between 10 and 20 per cent, because that echoes real-life experience. The closest we have to a controlled experiment on the spread of Covid-19 was the cruise ship Diamond Princess, where the disease was able to spread uncontrolled in January, and almost all were later tested for the disease. Out of the 3,711 passengers and crew, 712 – or 19 per cent – were infected.
If herd immunity really is achieved at between 10 to 20 per cent it could mean that many parts of the world are approaching it – or are there already. A study of 1,000 residents in the North West German town of Gangelt in early April suggested that 14 per cent had already been infected (many without even knowing it). A study of 1,300 New Yorkers in late April suggested that 21 per cent have been infected.
Since mid-March there has been an assumption that herd immunity against Covid-19 would not be achieved until around 60 per cent of the population has been infected. It is a figure which gave rise to the now-famous paper by Professor Neil Ferguson of Imperial College, which claimed that a herd immunity policy (which the government denies ever following) would result in the deaths of 250,000 people in Britain. That figure has been challenged by scientists who have questioned some of the assumptions behind it – for example, it assumed a mortality rate of 0.9 per cent which Imperial College itself has since revised downwards to 0.66 per cent, and some believe is lower still.
But today comes another challenge. A team led by Gabriela Gomes of the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine argues that it is wrong to assume that herd immunity will only be achieved when 60 per cent of people have been infected. It is more likely, they argue, that the true figure lies between 10 and 20 per cent. The 60 per cent figure, they say, is based on the idea that we are all equally likely to contract the virus. In reality, there is a wide variation in an individual’s susceptibility to becoming infected. People who are frail or who have greater exposure to the virus – perhaps because they are working in an intensive care unit – are in practice far more likely to contract the disease. As the epidemic progresses the pool of easily-infected individuals dries up and the virus has to search out new victims who are less-easily infected.
Modelling by Gomes’ team aims to calculate the ‘coefficient of variation’, which quantifies the variability in individuals’ susceptibility to the virus – with zero denoting no variability at all (ie we are equally likely to be infected). If this coefficient really were zero, say the scientists, then herd immunity would only be achieved when over 60 percent of the population has been infected. If the coefficient were four, on the other hand, it would be achieved when 10 per cent of us were infected. The team then looked at real-life data to try to deduce what the coefficient of variation really is and concluded that it is in the range of just under two to just over three. That would mean herd immunity could be achieved when between 10 and 20 per cent of us have been infected.
The usual health warnings apply. Gomes’ work is theoretical modelling and, in common with a lot of material on Covid-19 that is being pre-published at the moment (including Ferguson’s paper of 16 March), it has not been peer-reviewed. But it is interesting that it gives an estimate for herd immunity of between 10 and 20 per cent, because that echoes real-life experience. The closest we have to a controlled experiment on the spread of Covid-19 was the cruise ship Diamond Princess, where the disease was able to spread uncontrolled in January, and almost all were later tested for the disease. Out of the 3,711 passengers and crew, 712 – or 19 per cent – were infected.
If herd immunity really is achieved at between 10 to 20 per cent it could mean that many parts of the world are approaching it – or are there already. A study of 1,000 residents in the North West German town of Gangelt in early April suggested that 14 per cent had already been infected (many without even knowing it). A study of 1,300 New Yorkers in late April suggested that 21 per cent have been infected.
Show More
I think London may have herd immunity already.
Just a trickle of cases per day there, mostly I expect from newly hospitalized that were infected 10-15+ days ago. I can't see it being the lockdown, as London has less of a lockdown than everywhere else, with more key workers, the tube, and airports still feeding people in. Meanwhile other areas have way more cases daily than London now.
The lockdown should bring about a more uniform slowdown if it is actually able to stop the spread (as opposed to slowing it). As it is it appears the worst area is the first to be getting over it. That suggests the virus just runs it's course until it runs out of people to infect.
Just a trickle of cases per day there, mostly I expect from newly hospitalized that were infected 10-15+ days ago. I can't see it being the lockdown, as London has less of a lockdown than everywhere else, with more key workers, the tube, and airports still feeding people in. Meanwhile other areas have way more cases daily than London now.
The lockdown should bring about a more uniform slowdown if it is actually able to stop the spread (as opposed to slowing it). As it is it appears the worst area is the first to be getting over it. That suggests the virus just runs it's course until it runs out of people to infect.
Would certainly explain why cases tail off after 4-6 weeks where ever there is an outbreak.
Sweden tailed off in Stockholm with 20% infected. NYC the same with 21%.
Sweden tailed off in Stockholm with 20% infected. NYC the same with 21%.
Here is the paper for those that need it:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.27.20081893v1.full.pdf
Be aware as with the now infamous Imperial College paper this one is unpublished and has not been peer reviewed so could also have errors.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.27.20081893v1.full.pdf
Be aware as with the now infamous Imperial College paper this one is unpublished and has not been peer reviewed so could also have errors.
Lets get a bit of history on this clown Ferguson shall we...
Professor Neil Ferguson, and the idiot presidents and prime ministers who believe his computer predictions : May 4 2020
Nothing is riding on this except the immediate future of the human race
Ferguson used old failed model to predict COVID deaths
by Jon Rappoport : https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/
Buying, for the moment, the official story about the “pandemic,” there were two basic choices:
Let people go about their lives and develop, through contact, natural immunity to the disease; or imprison populations in their homes.
Why was the second choice made?
This is my second article about Neil Ferguson (first article, here), the UK professor whose computer model of COVID-19 changed the world and drove that second choice.
Ferguson’s model predicted a worst-case estimate of 510,000 deaths in the UK, and 2.2 million deaths in the US.
At that point, anybody who was anybody stood up and saluted.
Both heads of government, Trump and Johnson, radically changed course. Instead of allowing people to go about their lives and develop natural immunity, they took the lockdown approach, devastating their economies.
Below, I’ll reprint quotes from my first article, exposing Professor Ferguson’s track record of abysmal and destructive failures in predicting the spread of diseases.
This record was available to anyone—including Trump, Fauci, Deborah Birx, Boris Johnson—but of course these important people have no time to read or think.
Apparently, a key White house conversation went something like this:
FAUCI: Mr. President, we have a new report from the UK. A computer model is predicting the spread of the epidemic. There could be 2 million deaths in the US, if we don’t take drastic action. There must be heavy lockdowns. The state governors will have to carry that ball, but your position on this needs to be unequivocal.
TRUMP: Two million deaths. You’re sure?
FAUCI: Yes, sir. Quite sure.
TRUMP: No way out? Except lockdowns?
FAUCI: That’s right.
TRUMP: Well, then. Okay.
The sheer brilliance in the Oval Office that day must have been blinding.
So, first up, let’s take a peek at a recent article from Nature, the venerable British medical journal. April 2, “Special report: The [computer] simulations driving the world’s response to COVID-19”:
“…it’s natural to wonder how reliable any of the [computer] simulations are. Unfortunately, during a pandemic it is hard to get data — such as on infection rates — against which to judge a model’s projections.”
This is called a clue. Computer models predicting the spread of disease may be an interesting academic exercise, but in the real world, where lives and nations are on the line, THE DATA, on which the projections are based, are elusive. Without accurate data, what do you have? How about opinion, bias, and conjecture?
Nature: “’You can project [via computer models] forwards and then compare against what you get. But the problem is that our surveillance systems are pretty rubbish’, says John Edmunds, who is a modeller at the LSHTM [London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine]. ‘The total numbers of cases reported, is that accurate? No. Accurate anywhere? No’.”
I see. Rubbish. Total number of cases—inaccurate everywhere. Bad data. No data. In other words, the computer models are sophisticated tripe.
Nature: “’Forecasts made during an outbreak are rarely investigated during or after the event for their accuracy, and only recently have forecasters begun to make results, code, models and data available for retrospective analysis,’ Edmunds and his team noted last year in a paper that assessed the performance of forecasts made in a 2014–15 Ebola outbreak in Sierra Leone. They found that it was possible to reliably predict the epidemic’s course one or two weeks ahead of time, but no longer, because of the inherent uncertainty and lack of knowledge about the outbreak.”
Computer predictions are rarely investigated for accuracy. Can’t make accurate predictions for more than two weeks ahead. Do you suppose Fauci, who has served as a public health dictator since medieval times, is aware of this, but is ignoring it? That’s a rhetorical question, Your Honor. I withdraw it. The answer is obvious.
Finally, Nature provides us with this startling factoid: “The 16 March simulations that the [Neil Ferguson] team ran to inform the UK government’s COVID-19 response used an agent-based model built in 2005 to see what would happen in Thailand if H5N1 avian flu mutated to a version that could spread easily between people.”
That’s like saying, “This year, the driver in the Indianapolis 500 is sitting in a car built 15 years ago. He’s dusted it off and hopes it works and doesn’t crash into the wall.”
You may think this is an unkind comparison, but we know something about that dusty Ferguson 2005 computer model of avian flu. Here is a quote from the Business insider, 4/25:
“…he [Ferguson] was accused of creating panic by overestimating the potential death toll during the 2005 Bird [avian] Flu outbreak. Ferguson estimated 200 million could die. The real number was in the low hundreds.”
THIS is the basic model Ferguson has now used to project deaths from COVID-19.
Are your eyeballs popping? They should be.
Without further ado, here is the Business Insider, 4/25, reporting Neil Ferguson’s other grotesque prediction failures:
“Michael Thrusfield, a professor of veterinary epidemiology at Edinburgh University, told the paper he had ‘déjà vu’ after reading the [Ferguson] Imperial paper [on COVID], saying Ferguson was responsible for excessive animal culling during the 2001 Foot and Mouth [actually, Mad Cow disease] outbreak.”
“Ferguson warned the government that 150,000 people could die. Six million animals were slaughtered as a precaution, costing the country billions in farming revenue. In the end, 200 people died.”
“In 2009, one of Ferguson’s models predicted 65,000 people could die from the Swine Flu outbreak in the UK — the final figure was below 500.”
Want more? The Business Insider raises the level of shock even higher.
“Ferguson co-founded the MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, based at Imperial [College], in 2008. It is the leading body advising national governments on pathogen outbreaks.”
“It gets tens of millions of dollars in annual funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and works with the UK National Health Service, the US Centres for Disease Prevention and Control (CDC), and is tasked with supplying the World Health Organization with ‘rapid analysis of urgent infectious disease problems’.”
Getting the picture?
Bill Gates wants a COVID vaccine before planetary lockdowns end. The lockdowns, of course, are already making a wreck of the Earth’s economies.
Bill Gates’ money goes to Ferguson.
Ferguson supplies, to the CDC and WHO, a vastly worthless but frightening computer projection of COVID deaths. Ferguson thus communicates a justification for the Gates global vaccine plan.
The CDC and WHO act, based on what Gates wants, as expressed by Ferguson.
National governments surrender to WHO and CDC. LOCKDOWNS.
What say you, Trump, Johnson, Merkel, Macron, et al? Are you merely clueless idiots, no brighter than some passerby on a street corner who’s handed a sign for a protest, and joins the line, having zero idea what he’s supporting? Are you that stupid, as you point to Ferguson’s farce of a computer model, with eyes glazed?
Are you simply in fear of experts who, on their best day, should be consigned to modelling numbers of cockroaches in motel rooms?
Or are you hostile idiots, who intend to destroy countless lives as economics sink further into ruin, day by day?
P.S. Perhaps you’re thinking, “These governments couldn’t be THAT crazy and stupid and vicious. They couldn’t have acted based on Neil Ferguson’s computer model…”
Business Insider, 4/25: “Ferguson’s team warned Boris Johnson that the quest for ‘herd immunity’ [letting people live their lives out in the open in the UK] could cost 510,000 lives, prompting an abrupt U-turn [massive national lockdown in the UK]…His [Ferguson’s] simulations have been influential in other countries as well, cited by authorities in the US, Germany, and France.”
“On March 23, the UK scrapped ‘herd immunity’ in favor of a suppression strategy, and the country made preparations for weeks of lockdown. Ferguson’s study was responsible.”
“Dr Deborah Birx, coronavirus response coordinator to the Trump administration, told journalists at a March 16 press briefing that the Imperial paper [Ferguson’s computer projection] prompted the CDC’s new advice to work from home and avoid gatherings of 10 or more.”
TO READ ALL MY ARTICLES ON THE COVID LUNACY:
https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/category/covid/
Professor Neil Ferguson, and the idiot presidents and prime ministers who believe his computer predictions : May 4 2020
Nothing is riding on this except the immediate future of the human race
Ferguson used old failed model to predict COVID deaths
by Jon Rappoport : https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/
Buying, for the moment, the official story about the “pandemic,” there were two basic choices:
Let people go about their lives and develop, through contact, natural immunity to the disease; or imprison populations in their homes.
Why was the second choice made?
This is my second article about Neil Ferguson (first article, here), the UK professor whose computer model of COVID-19 changed the world and drove that second choice.
Ferguson’s model predicted a worst-case estimate of 510,000 deaths in the UK, and 2.2 million deaths in the US.
At that point, anybody who was anybody stood up and saluted.
Both heads of government, Trump and Johnson, radically changed course. Instead of allowing people to go about their lives and develop natural immunity, they took the lockdown approach, devastating their economies.
Below, I’ll reprint quotes from my first article, exposing Professor Ferguson’s track record of abysmal and destructive failures in predicting the spread of diseases.
This record was available to anyone—including Trump, Fauci, Deborah Birx, Boris Johnson—but of course these important people have no time to read or think.
Apparently, a key White house conversation went something like this:
FAUCI: Mr. President, we have a new report from the UK. A computer model is predicting the spread of the epidemic. There could be 2 million deaths in the US, if we don’t take drastic action. There must be heavy lockdowns. The state governors will have to carry that ball, but your position on this needs to be unequivocal.
TRUMP: Two million deaths. You’re sure?
FAUCI: Yes, sir. Quite sure.
TRUMP: No way out? Except lockdowns?
FAUCI: That’s right.
TRUMP: Well, then. Okay.
The sheer brilliance in the Oval Office that day must have been blinding.
So, first up, let’s take a peek at a recent article from Nature, the venerable British medical journal. April 2, “Special report: The [computer] simulations driving the world’s response to COVID-19”:
“…it’s natural to wonder how reliable any of the [computer] simulations are. Unfortunately, during a pandemic it is hard to get data — such as on infection rates — against which to judge a model’s projections.”
This is called a clue. Computer models predicting the spread of disease may be an interesting academic exercise, but in the real world, where lives and nations are on the line, THE DATA, on which the projections are based, are elusive. Without accurate data, what do you have? How about opinion, bias, and conjecture?
Nature: “’You can project [via computer models] forwards and then compare against what you get. But the problem is that our surveillance systems are pretty rubbish’, says John Edmunds, who is a modeller at the LSHTM [London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine]. ‘The total numbers of cases reported, is that accurate? No. Accurate anywhere? No’.”
I see. Rubbish. Total number of cases—inaccurate everywhere. Bad data. No data. In other words, the computer models are sophisticated tripe.
Nature: “’Forecasts made during an outbreak are rarely investigated during or after the event for their accuracy, and only recently have forecasters begun to make results, code, models and data available for retrospective analysis,’ Edmunds and his team noted last year in a paper that assessed the performance of forecasts made in a 2014–15 Ebola outbreak in Sierra Leone. They found that it was possible to reliably predict the epidemic’s course one or two weeks ahead of time, but no longer, because of the inherent uncertainty and lack of knowledge about the outbreak.”
Computer predictions are rarely investigated for accuracy. Can’t make accurate predictions for more than two weeks ahead. Do you suppose Fauci, who has served as a public health dictator since medieval times, is aware of this, but is ignoring it? That’s a rhetorical question, Your Honor. I withdraw it. The answer is obvious.
Finally, Nature provides us with this startling factoid: “The 16 March simulations that the [Neil Ferguson] team ran to inform the UK government’s COVID-19 response used an agent-based model built in 2005 to see what would happen in Thailand if H5N1 avian flu mutated to a version that could spread easily between people.”
That’s like saying, “This year, the driver in the Indianapolis 500 is sitting in a car built 15 years ago. He’s dusted it off and hopes it works and doesn’t crash into the wall.”
You may think this is an unkind comparison, but we know something about that dusty Ferguson 2005 computer model of avian flu. Here is a quote from the Business insider, 4/25:
“…he [Ferguson] was accused of creating panic by overestimating the potential death toll during the 2005 Bird [avian] Flu outbreak. Ferguson estimated 200 million could die. The real number was in the low hundreds.”
THIS is the basic model Ferguson has now used to project deaths from COVID-19.
Are your eyeballs popping? They should be.
Without further ado, here is the Business Insider, 4/25, reporting Neil Ferguson’s other grotesque prediction failures:
“Michael Thrusfield, a professor of veterinary epidemiology at Edinburgh University, told the paper he had ‘déjà vu’ after reading the [Ferguson] Imperial paper [on COVID], saying Ferguson was responsible for excessive animal culling during the 2001 Foot and Mouth [actually, Mad Cow disease] outbreak.”
“Ferguson warned the government that 150,000 people could die. Six million animals were slaughtered as a precaution, costing the country billions in farming revenue. In the end, 200 people died.”
“In 2009, one of Ferguson’s models predicted 65,000 people could die from the Swine Flu outbreak in the UK — the final figure was below 500.”
Want more? The Business Insider raises the level of shock even higher.
“Ferguson co-founded the MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, based at Imperial [College], in 2008. It is the leading body advising national governments on pathogen outbreaks.”
“It gets tens of millions of dollars in annual funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and works with the UK National Health Service, the US Centres for Disease Prevention and Control (CDC), and is tasked with supplying the World Health Organization with ‘rapid analysis of urgent infectious disease problems’.”
Getting the picture?
Bill Gates wants a COVID vaccine before planetary lockdowns end. The lockdowns, of course, are already making a wreck of the Earth’s economies.
Bill Gates’ money goes to Ferguson.
Ferguson supplies, to the CDC and WHO, a vastly worthless but frightening computer projection of COVID deaths. Ferguson thus communicates a justification for the Gates global vaccine plan.
The CDC and WHO act, based on what Gates wants, as expressed by Ferguson.
National governments surrender to WHO and CDC. LOCKDOWNS.
What say you, Trump, Johnson, Merkel, Macron, et al? Are you merely clueless idiots, no brighter than some passerby on a street corner who’s handed a sign for a protest, and joins the line, having zero idea what he’s supporting? Are you that stupid, as you point to Ferguson’s farce of a computer model, with eyes glazed?
Are you simply in fear of experts who, on their best day, should be consigned to modelling numbers of cockroaches in motel rooms?
Or are you hostile idiots, who intend to destroy countless lives as economics sink further into ruin, day by day?
P.S. Perhaps you’re thinking, “These governments couldn’t be THAT crazy and stupid and vicious. They couldn’t have acted based on Neil Ferguson’s computer model…”
Business Insider, 4/25: “Ferguson’s team warned Boris Johnson that the quest for ‘herd immunity’ [letting people live their lives out in the open in the UK] could cost 510,000 lives, prompting an abrupt U-turn [massive national lockdown in the UK]…His [Ferguson’s] simulations have been influential in other countries as well, cited by authorities in the US, Germany, and France.”
“On March 23, the UK scrapped ‘herd immunity’ in favor of a suppression strategy, and the country made preparations for weeks of lockdown. Ferguson’s study was responsible.”
“Dr Deborah Birx, coronavirus response coordinator to the Trump administration, told journalists at a March 16 press briefing that the Imperial paper [Ferguson’s computer projection] prompted the CDC’s new advice to work from home and avoid gatherings of 10 or more.”
TO READ ALL MY ARTICLES ON THE COVID LUNACY:
https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/category/covid/
'Climate change' 'forecasts' are also made using computer models.
Nothing wrong with wanting a cleaner earth but shutting down western manufacturing due to a computer model predicting 'climate change' should be halted immediately.
Nothing wrong with wanting a cleaner earth but shutting down western manufacturing due to a computer model predicting 'climate change' should be halted immediately.
It beggars the utmost belief that this hopeless c**t ferguson holds down any sort of job let alone one which involves analysing computer predictions for a possible world wide pandemic.
The more you find out about this charade the worse it actually becomes
The more you find out about this charade the worse it actually becomes
So the western world is on lock down due to the advice given to governments by this dope Ferguson ?
Am i reading this correctly ?
Am i reading this correctly ?
He's the one that is always cited meetings back in march had up to 20 scientists from a number of different groups involved.
Ferguson pops up in a few of these different groups, Perhaps his influence was louder than the others.
ie SAGE were voices huge concerns the disease was likely to cause havoc, of course he is part of that, imperial college and some other groups too that were forming the advice to govt.
Ferguson pops up in a few of these different groups, Perhaps his influence was louder than the others.
ie SAGE were voices huge concerns the disease was likely to cause havoc, of course he is part of that, imperial college and some other groups too that were forming the advice to govt.
Am i missing something about this guy ? Surely no one in their right mind can trust anything he gets behind or drives ? 
If they forecast 10,000 deaths and there are 50,000 deaths that is a bad model in their eye. The public complain no action has caused 40,000 deaths.
If they forecast 500,000 deaths and there are 50,000 deaths 'due to actions taken' they can say it was successful policy.
They have carefully used the forecasts from him so they can say the policy of lockdown is working. If we didn't do that 500,000 would have died.
It is all about framing and making the state look strong and the people thank the government.
Unfortunately they have been found out because Sweden refused to play along with their game.
If they forecast 500,000 deaths and there are 50,000 deaths 'due to actions taken' they can say it was successful policy.
They have carefully used the forecasts from him so they can say the policy of lockdown is working. If we didn't do that 500,000 would have died.
It is all about framing and making the state look strong and the people thank the government.
Unfortunately they have been found out because Sweden refused to play along with their game.
IT doesn't like to mention the estimated figures contained within the model with the suggested mitigating actions in place.
Sweden took a punt. There was a huge amount of wrangling internally among their experts and their measures not being strict enough.
Looks like they may have listened to the right voice.
I don't think Ferguson should be the only focus by a long way though. There's two others we see frequently at the daily briefings that have had input and many more you won't have heard of.
It's a real mash up looking back in time of what the govt here were actually thinking back as far as January.They were being fed concerns which grew louder but the rhetoric from Boris was that there was no problem we were geared up to deal with a pandemic.There was definitely a case of what was being said privately in the meetings and what was being presented to the public being completely different.
When Sage concerns accelerated and then the infamous Ferguson model were released the big panic and change in policy was sealed.
Looks like they may have listened to the right voice.
I don't think Ferguson should be the only focus by a long way though. There's two others we see frequently at the daily briefings that have had input and many more you won't have heard of.
It's a real mash up looking back in time of what the govt here were actually thinking back as far as January.They were being fed concerns which grew louder but the rhetoric from Boris was that there was no problem we were geared up to deal with a pandemic.There was definitely a case of what was being said privately in the meetings and what was being presented to the public being completely different.
When Sage concerns accelerated and then the infamous Ferguson model were released the big panic and change in policy was sealed.
Would certainly be great news going back to the opening post if this Herd Immunity much lower threshold theory proves to be correct.
Is Ferguson the only scientist?
We are following the science? Really!
Where was the questioning earlier? Fact is we were not sure of the likely outcomes and had to show some caution. The biggest mistakes imho apart from leaving old people to die in care homes and lack of leadership was leaving the airlines open to bring this too us. Who are the main cities to suffer London, New York. Which countries? Western Europe and USA. Why a combination of flight routes, volume of flights, density of population and lack of political leadership an abdication of authority.
It is not rocket science, certainly with the benefit of hindsight. As I have said all along we needed foresight not hindsight and leadership. Both have been sadly lacking. It is not the fault of scientists. These people advise, Ministers decide!
We are following the science? Really!
Where was the questioning earlier? Fact is we were not sure of the likely outcomes and had to show some caution. The biggest mistakes imho apart from leaving old people to die in care homes and lack of leadership was leaving the airlines open to bring this too us. Who are the main cities to suffer London, New York. Which countries? Western Europe and USA. Why a combination of flight routes, volume of flights, density of population and lack of political leadership an abdication of authority.
It is not rocket science, certainly with the benefit of hindsight. As I have said all along we needed foresight not hindsight and leadership. Both have been sadly lacking. It is not the fault of scientists. These people advise, Ministers decide!
why quote sweeden compared to new Zealand ,sweeden have had a calamity,evidence around the world Vietnam border with china,shows that if countries had locked down completely,including borders,they could have made sweedish figures look grim
The model provided a range of R rates and a range of "trigger" figures, along with a range of possible actions that could be taken to mitigate the spread of the virus.
I've picked one of the tables where the model input of R was set at 2.4 and here it is below:
The trigger figure is the number of ICU beds currently occupied when you decide to implement the mitigating actions.
The mitigating actions included in the model were as follows:
CI Case isolation
HQ Voluntary home quarantine
SD Social distancing
PC Closure of schools & universities
Insider Trader has consistently declined to discuss the range of figures that were produced as estimates by the model.
His preference is to only ever discuss the high estimate which results from none of the mitigating actions being taken.
I've picked one of the tables where the model input of R was set at 2.4 and here it is below:
| Trigger | Do Nothing | CI HQ SD | PC CI SD | PC CI HQ SD |
| 60 | 510,000 | 85,000 | 12,000 | 8,700 |
| 100 | 510,000 | 87,000 | 19,000 | 13,000 |
| 200 | 510,000 | 90,000 | 30,000 | 24,000 |
| 300 | 510,000 | 94,000 | 43,000 | 34,000 |
| 400 | 510,000 | 98,000 | 53,000 | 39,000 |
The trigger figure is the number of ICU beds currently occupied when you decide to implement the mitigating actions.
The mitigating actions included in the model were as follows:
CI Case isolation
HQ Voluntary home quarantine
SD Social distancing
PC Closure of schools & universities
Insider Trader has consistently declined to discuss the range of figures that were produced as estimates by the model.
His preference is to only ever discuss the high estimate which results from none of the mitigating actions being taken.
All four suggested mitigating actions were implemented, thus the range of deaths within the model for an R figure of 2.4 is 8,700 to 39,000.
Because mitigating actions were taken, we can never know with if the figure of 510,000 deaths would have occurred.
Because mitigating actions were taken, we can never know with if the figure of 510,000 deaths would have occurred.
Using your predictions Angoose make a prediction for Sweden using the policies Sweden adopted please.
Now, I am not taking a position on the merits or demerits of the model, I do not have sufficient subject matter expertise nor the opportunity to question the assumptions behind the model with the team who created it.
What I am doing, however, is pointing out that it produced a very wide range of outcomes, this range being dependent on a number of variables.
What I am doing, however, is pointing out that it produced a very wide range of outcomes, this range being dependent on a number of variables.
May 5, 2020 -- 10:03AM, InsiderTrader wrote:
Using your predictions Angoose make a prediction for Sweden using the policies Sweden adopted please.
Why do you think I have made predictions ?
Angoose...
What was the prediction for UK if we had:
1. Advise on social distancing and hand washing.
2. Isolate houshold 7-14 if someone coughs etc.
3. Ban crowds over 50 people.
4. Social distancing in pubs and resturants.
Do nothing else.
What was the prediction for UK if we had:
1. Advise on social distancing and hand washing.
2. Isolate houshold 7-14 if someone coughs etc.
3. Ban crowds over 50 people.
4. Social distancing in pubs and resturants.
Do nothing else.
Angoose
Date Joined: 18 Jul 02
Add contact | Send message
05 May 20 09:05
Joined: 18 Jul 02
| Topic/replies: 15,738 | Blogger: Angoose's blog
May 5, 2020 -- 9:03AM, InsiderTrader wrote:
Using your predictions Angoose make a prediction for Sweden using the policies Sweden adopted please.
Why do you think I have made predictions ?
^
I was asking if you had the skills to infer an estimate from your Imperial Predictions. Maybe you do not have to skills to do that.
Date Joined: 18 Jul 02
Add contact | Send message
05 May 20 09:05
Joined: 18 Jul 02
| Topic/replies: 15,738 | Blogger: Angoose's blog
May 5, 2020 -- 9:03AM, InsiderTrader wrote:
Using your predictions Angoose make a prediction for Sweden using the policies Sweden adopted please.
Why do you think I have made predictions ?
^
I was asking if you had the skills to infer an estimate from your Imperial Predictions. Maybe you do not have to skills to do that.
And you are getting very prickly very quickly now the full extent of the model has been poste don the forum.
May 5, 2020 -- 10:09AM, InsiderTrader wrote:
AngooseDate Joined: 18 Jul 02Add contact | Send message05 May 20 09:05Joined: 18 Jul 02| Topic/replies: 15,738 | Blogger: Angoose's blog May 5, 2020 -- 9:03AM, InsiderTrader wrote: Using your predictions Angoose make a prediction for Sweden using the policies Sweden adopted please.Why do you think I have made predictions ?^I was asking if you had the skills to infer an estimate from your Imperial Predictions. Maybe you do not have to skills to do that.
That's not what you asked at all, you are now getting rattled and going off on one of your infamous tangents.
Angoose
05 May 20 08:55
Joined: 18 Jul 02
| Topic/replies: 15,739 | Blogger: Angoose's blog
The model provided a range of R rates and a range of "trigger" figures, along with a range of possible actions that could be taken to mitigate the spread of the virus.
I've picked one of the tables where the model input of R was set at 2.4 and here it is below:
Trigger Do Nothing CI HQ SD PC CI SD PC CI HQ SD
60 510,000 85,000 12,000 8,700
100 510,000 87,000 19,000 13,000
200 510,000 90,000 30,000 24,000
300 510,000 94,000 43,000 34,000
400 510,000 98,000 53,000 39,000
The trigger figure is the number of ICU beds currently occupied when you decide to implement the mitigating actions.
The mitigating actions included in the model were as follows:
CI Case isolation
HQ Voluntary home quarantine
SD Social distancing
PC Closure of schools & universities
Insider Trader has consistently declined to discuss the range of figures that were produced as estimates by the model.
His preference is to only ever discuss the high estimate which results from none of the mitigating actions being taken.
^
What do you want to discuss regarding that table?
If 500k (the number in the press all the time pre lockdown) is not relevant what is the relevant number from your table if we had followed the pre-lockdown policies?
Would that not be more relevant than the 500k number?
05 May 20 08:55
Joined: 18 Jul 02
| Topic/replies: 15,739 | Blogger: Angoose's blog
The model provided a range of R rates and a range of "trigger" figures, along with a range of possible actions that could be taken to mitigate the spread of the virus.
I've picked one of the tables where the model input of R was set at 2.4 and here it is below:
Trigger Do Nothing CI HQ SD PC CI SD PC CI HQ SD
60 510,000 85,000 12,000 8,700
100 510,000 87,000 19,000 13,000
200 510,000 90,000 30,000 24,000
300 510,000 94,000 43,000 34,000
400 510,000 98,000 53,000 39,000
The trigger figure is the number of ICU beds currently occupied when you decide to implement the mitigating actions.
The mitigating actions included in the model were as follows:
CI Case isolation
HQ Voluntary home quarantine
SD Social distancing
PC Closure of schools & universities
Insider Trader has consistently declined to discuss the range of figures that were produced as estimates by the model.
His preference is to only ever discuss the high estimate which results from none of the mitigating actions being taken.
^
What do you want to discuss regarding that table?
If 500k (the number in the press all the time pre lockdown) is not relevant what is the relevant number from your table if we had followed the pre-lockdown policies?
Would that not be more relevant than the 500k number?
Ok.
Do you have the skills to work out from the Imperial Forecast for if Boris had stuck to original plan that was similar to Swedens (schools open, work from home if you can and so on)?
Are you able to do that or not?
Do you have the skills to work out from the Imperial Forecast for if Boris had stuck to original plan that was similar to Swedens (schools open, work from home if you can and so on)?
Are you able to do that or not?
You are complaining incessantly at any mention of the 250-500k figures put out by Ferguson in the media at the start of this leading up to lockdown.
If you have another number on a prediction that involved no lockdown and no primary school closures to counter the numbers please post.
If you do not have the skills the counter the no action number then I suggest you drop it.
I, for one, find the numbers coming out of Sweden as proof that Ferguson's model was wrong.
If you can proof he was not wrong please enlighten the forum.
If you have another number on a prediction that involved no lockdown and no primary school closures to counter the numbers please post.
If you do not have the skills the counter the no action number then I suggest you drop it.
I, for one, find the numbers coming out of Sweden as proof that Ferguson's model was wrong.
If you can proof he was not wrong please enlighten the forum.
Oh dear, getting increasingly rattled, aren't you, never mind.
Can you please enlighten the forum as to the extent of your subject matter expertise that justifies the various assertions you are claiming to be valid.
Can you please enlighten the forum as to the extent of your subject matter expertise that justifies the various assertions you are claiming to be valid.
You seem really upset by the use of the 500k number (that was used all over the media) yet you are unable to offer the alternative number to counter it.
Bizarre.
What am I 'claiming' that you disagree with?
Please feel free to provide a counter argument with anything you disagree with.
Bizarre.
What am I 'claiming' that you disagree with?
Please feel free to provide a counter argument with anything you disagree with.
Now that I have provided an example of the range of outcomes that the model provided as outcomes, can you please let us know why you previously wished to avoid introducing such a range.
And we can safely assume that, like the rest of us, you have no subject matter expertise ?
So lets get this clear....
his 'SD' mitigation is basically lockdown?
All households reduce contact outside household, school or workplace by 75%. School contact rates unchanged, workplace contact rates reduced by 25%. Household contact rates assumed to increase by 25%.
If we go for case isolation and voluntery quarantine (basically the original plan) we would be looking at around 175,000 deaths according to Figure 2.
his 'SD' mitigation is basically lockdown?
All households reduce contact outside household, school or workplace by 75%. School contact rates unchanged, workplace contact rates reduced by 25%. Household contact rates assumed to increase by 25%.
If we go for case isolation and voluntery quarantine (basically the original plan) we would be looking at around 175,000 deaths according to Figure 2.
Angoose
Date Joined: 18 Jul 02
Add contact | Send message
05 May 20 09:49
Joined: 18 Jul 02
| Topic/replies: 15,752 | Blogger: Angoose's blog
And we can safely assume that, like the rest of us, you have no subject matter expertise ?
^
What subject matter is that? I am an expert is AI modelling and data analysis. From that I can tell when something is way off.
Date Joined: 18 Jul 02
Add contact | Send message
05 May 20 09:49
Joined: 18 Jul 02
| Topic/replies: 15,752 | Blogger: Angoose's blog
And we can safely assume that, like the rest of us, you have no subject matter expertise ?
^
What subject matter is that? I am an expert is AI modelling and data analysis. From that I can tell when something is way off.
Good to see that you are finally taking the time to actually read the report though.
If I t is an expert in modelling then I can see why we have got it so wrong in the uk
Is the 175k number about right from your understanding of the paper or can you add anything?
I know you enjoy saying 'no you are wrong.' but do not like saying 'you and wrong and the correct answer in my opinion is..'.
But why not try and be a little bit more constructive in your comments.
I know you enjoy saying 'no you are wrong.' but do not like saying 'you and wrong and the correct answer in my opinion is..'.
But why not try and be a little bit more constructive in your comments.
Simply showing you are wrong suffices
Have you ever got anything right
?
The trend of going off at a tangent as you are shown up and then you trying to get people to agree 1 plus 1 is 2 to salvage a modicum of dignity just makes me laff
Have you ever got anything right
?
The trend of going off at a tangent as you are shown up and then you trying to get people to agree 1 plus 1 is 2 to salvage a modicum of dignity just makes me laff
Wrong about what YHTL?
What do you think about policy if herd immunity can be reached with 10%-20% being infected?
Does it seem plausible to you given after 4-6 weeks in every area cases drop off regardless of policy?
What do you think about policy if herd immunity can be reached with 10%-20% being infected?
Does it seem plausible to you given after 4-6 weeks in every area cases drop off regardless of policy?
You are asking us to speculate about double hypotheticals when you cannot accept simple truths
There you go again 
Another attempted tangent
Any simple truth that contradicts your narrow view
Another attempted tangent
Any simple truth that contradicts your narrow view
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539