Members banned from this thread: domer76, Charoite, Walt, Doc Dutch and Geeko Sportivo |
.
He has a lot to answer for, reminds me of that arrogant sod Michael Mann to be honest.
.
Forget Ferguson's personal failures – it's his science that needs scrutiny
Newspapers aren’t the place to debate expert advice on a crisis. Advisors advise, ministers decide. We should keep politics out of science.
These three cries – and numerous variations upon them – have become common refrains as the UK’s increasingly fractious debate on the lockdown, the science behind it, and the best way to lift its various restrictions rolls on.
At first, they sound completely reasonable and unarguable: people are stepping up to the plate to help the government make life-or-death decisions in a time of crisis. That’s an admirable thing to do. What’s more, they’re doing it with years of expertise in their field behind them. Of course we should leave them to their work, and let them help guide our course.
The reality, of course, is messier.
Perhaps the most contentious of the government’s high-profile scientific advisors is professor Neil Ferguson of Imperial College, who heads up that university’s epidemiological modelling team, and whose model was credited as influential in sparking the lockdown.
Ferguson was the subject of surely unwelcome press attention this week when his lockdown liaisons with a married lover were splashed across the newspaper front pages. It was clear he would have to step down from his role on the government’s scientific advisory committee at this point – but only for the hypocrisy of not following the rules that he was influential in shaping, nothing more.
It is nonsense to imply, as some have, that Ferguson’s participation in a little (apparently ethical) non-monogamy affects his work as a scientist in any way. It does not – hypocrisy was his sin here, nothing more. This would provide no reason for SAGE or for ministers not to continue consulting his modelling, or even informally consulting Ferguson himself if they so choose.
But if we are to say that Ferguson and the Imperial model’s work should be judged on its own merits, that does mean that we – all of us – should be allowed to do just that. We cannot sit back and allow it to stand because he’s the expert. Other people with relevant expertise should be able to see the team’s workings, to ask awkward questions, and to loudly disagree.
For a long time, this was all but impossible. In a fairly unusual break from best practice, Ferguson did not release the code on which his model runs (and has run in various forms for several years), saying it was largely undocumented and would make little sense to outsiders.
This is poor practice for multiple reasons, not least of which being that replicating another’s work is a core principle of science, and essential to check workings. It’s also well known among programmers and scientists alike that most code eventually contains errors and idiosyncrasies, for which we must remain constantly vigilant.
Far, far simpler models than Ferguson’s have ended up containing huge errors that have drastically altered their conclusions.
A pseudonymous post on Lockdown Sceptics has done just that preliminary analysis on a version of Ferguson’s code that has been cleaned up by Microsoft and others.
It raises a series of concerns that the published version of the model introduces randomness where it shouldn’t. Such models are intended to include some randomness – the concept is that they are run many, many times and we take an average, given that the path of the spread of a virus is itself is subject to chance.
But factors like the computer type upon which the code is running should not affect the result – and when those developing a model can’t rule out systemic errors (as they don’t seem to know what’s behind them at all), that should worry us. No model should be above questioning.
We should, though, pause well short of that article’s conclusion, which suggests throwing out all papers based on the code should be retracted and ‘all academic epidemiology be defunded’, which risks putting one and one together and making 11,000.
Ferguson’s model has not led the UK down a drastically different path from that of many other countries – indeed, it only recommended lockdown relatively late versus those used by other countries. It likely contains errors, but it’s hardly a huge outlier from the international consensus. Those looking for anything to show lockdown is an error should search for another straw to grasp.
We should, though, welcome the efforts to test and even to tear down the Imperial model. This is what the scientific process is – a spirited and often fractious public debate, a battle place of ideas. It is rarely as high-minded and public-spirited as those who place it on a pedestal would hope.
Peer reviewers savage a paper because it contradicts their own research, or because they’ve guessed who the author is and can’t stand them. Institutions battle for fame and for funding. People hold grudges. Personality, like politics, doesn’t stop at the water’s edge – good work comes out of dubious motivations.
Science also doesn’t stop at the journal or at peer review. The disastrous MMR study on autism by Andrew Wakefield may have been boosted by supporters in the media, but it was published in a peer-review journal. The drug thalidomide passed all appropriate scientific and medical checks. Continued scrutiny might not be nice, but it can save lives.
We should be grateful to anyone stepping up to try to help tackle coronavirus. But that shouldn’t stop us for a second in holding their feet to the fire either.
https://app.spectator.co.uk/2020/05/...y/content.html
Last edited by cancel2 2022; 05-09-2020 at 08:34 PM.
FUCK THE POLICE (05-18-2020)
Abortion rights dogma can obscure human reason & harden the human heart so much that the same person who feels
empathy for animal suffering can lack compassion for unborn children who experience lethal violence and excruciating
pain in abortion.
Unborn animals are protected in their nesting places, humans are not. To abort something is to end something
which has begun. To abort life is to end it.
cancel2 2022 (05-09-2020), Grokmaster (05-17-2020)
Tom, leftists won't click a link if they think it doesn't support their narrative, you lazy sod.
On March 16th a professor from Imperial College in London called Neil Ferguson used a mathematical computer model he created in 2009 to estimate the infection rate and death toll of the coronavirus.
Only 2 days later he entered “self isolation” having supposedly contracting the coronavirus himself.
He said that he expected 60% of the country to contract the coronavirus and he predicted that the USA would see up to 2.2million deaths and 500,000 for the UK.
On the back of Ferguson's prediction two of the worlds largest economies completely shut down.
Only 9 days after scaring the world into an unprecedented lock down, Ferguson drags himself out of “self isolation” to speak to a parliamentary committee and reveals that he has now readjusted his model and “now feels confident that the death toll in the UK will be below 20,000”.
BTW, he was forced to resign in disgrace when it was revealed that he'd been breaking his own "quarantine" to fuck a married woman.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/05/uk/ne...ntl/index.html
FUCK THE POLICE (05-18-2020)
dukkha (05-17-2020), Grokmaster (05-17-2020)
.
Computer code for Ferguson's model which predicted 500,000 would die from Covid-19 and inspired Britain's 'Stay Home' plan is a 'mess which would get you fired in private industry' say data experts
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-experts.html
FUCK THE POLICE (05-18-2020)
Earl (05-18-2020), Grokmaster (05-17-2020)
.
This is his mistress she looked pretty good with a bit of slap on, but side on, dog rough!!
28489826-0-image-a-1_1589701337658.jpg
28480318-0-image-a-23_1589669226937.jpg
Last edited by cancel2 2022; 05-17-2020 at 09:31 PM.
Grokmaster (05-17-2020)
cancel2 2022 (05-17-2020)
FUCK THE POLICE (05-18-2020)
Grokmaster (05-17-2020)
You lazy sod.
On March 16th a professor from the Imperial College in London called Neil Ferguson used a mathematical computer model he created in 2009 to estimate the infection rate and death toll of the coronavirus.
Only 2 days later he entered “self isolation” having supposedly contracted the coronavirus himself.
He said that the USA would see up to 2.2 million deaths and predicted 500,000 for the UK.
His report clearly stated that he believed we needed to lock the country down for up to 18 months.
On March 20th America shut its borders to travelers from Europe, and shortly after, the UK.
On March 25th, only 9 days after scaring the world into an unprecedented lockdown, Ferguson drags himself off out of “self isolation” to speak to a parliamentary committee and reveals that he has now "readjusted his model" and “now feels confident that the death toll in the UK will be below 20,000!”
https://www.thepause.com/consciousness/how-did-this-guy-get-to-bankrupt-the-world-see-the-timeline-of-errors-for-yourself/
Neil Ferguson's model has been the bedrock of the Anglo-American lockdown.
It is his Imperial College modelling that predicted a genocidal amount of deaths and a severe crisis unless a total lockdown was implemented, even when rival models, like one from Oxford University, predicted otherwise.
Now, it is understandable why politicians panic.
No one wants to be blamed for inaction, especially in the early days when Italians’ socialized health care was collapsing'
It turns out, the model was severely flawed.
The model’s software was 13 years old, with a program that predicted at random.
This particular scientist of a history of failed predictions.
Shutdowns aren’t sustainable.
https://thefederalist.com/2020/05/18/how-blind-faith-in-scientific-expertise-wrecked-the-economy/
Bookmarks