 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
Has anyone listened to the interview on Radio 4’s Life Scientific with Neil Ferguson. Fascinating, he’s a good guy, if only our politicians spoke like him and answered questions the way he did. He put Cummings to shame. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"He did very well with his modelling of what was going to happen in Sweden.."
He's never once been close with a model.
It's guess work.
Every model he has come up with has been out by enormous orders of magnitude. Mad cow in the 80's he said 60,000 would die. How many? About 200. Avian 10 years ago.200 million would die world wide. In reality less than 100k. This covid bull he said would kill 500k in the uk.
Nope.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
To be fair he said 500k if nothing was done
We had a literally unprecedented national lockdown for over a month and even then 50000 died - so had we done nothing he may well have been right
And I’m not criticising anyone for turning down that chance he had! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I heard the last half of the programme and he made an excellent job exploring his work this year. I've been disappointed hearing the criticism against him this year, typically from people who have little, or more likely no, statistical modelling experience.
It will be a good podcast for anyone who is interested. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"To be fair he said 500k if nothing was done
We had a literally unprecedented national lockdown for over a month and even then 50000 died - so had we done nothing he may well have been right
And I’m not criticising anyone for turning down that chance he had!"
Wooooohhh. Hold on tiger.
The figures are debatable.
When they are admitting to putting covid on death certificates without testing,when their testing is less than reliable....think again. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
If the modeling is accurate, pat yourself on the back and say how clever you are.
If the modeling is not accurate, pat yourself on the back and say how clever you are. Thanks to intervention based on your model a worse disaster was avoided. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If the modeling is accurate, pat yourself on the back and say how clever you are.
If the modeling is not accurate, pat yourself on the back and say how clever you are. Thanks to intervention based on your model a worse disaster was avoided."
The great thing with modelling is that they support learning feedback, as data is refined and the modeller is always hungry for such opportunities.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Uppsala university published a paper in April based on imperial college modelling. They predicted 96,000 deaths by the 1st July with no mitigation. They predicted that if Sweden continued with their policy of just social distancing and hand hygiene then that 96,000 death toll could be reduced by 15%. If Sweden followed the rest of Europe and implemented a full lockdown then that 96,000 death toll could be reduced by 50%.
Sweden continued with their policy and ended up with the highest death toll amongst the Nordic nations however way lower than the figures predicted from the imperial modelling. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If the modeling is accurate, pat yourself on the back and say how clever you are.
If the modeling is not accurate, pat yourself on the back and say how clever you are. Thanks to intervention based on your model a worse disaster was avoided.
The great thing with modelling is that they support learning feedback, as data is refined and the modeller is always hungry for such opportunities. "
.
If that were true then his models should get better alas his models have never changed, he's been out by many factors on every model he's ever done over many years with many different viruses and there ALWAYS over exaggerated, if this guy worked in any public sector that relied on his model he would have been out of work ten years ago.
He's an absolute clown. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The figures quoted for the model come from a very limited set of circumstances. They assume that the population catches the disease at random and dies at the same rate over all age groups. It was a very simplistic model to start with and we now know that the assumptions are incorrect. Forget that it ever existed and move on. The R rate also differs in different population groups. Very poor science. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If the modeling is accurate, pat yourself on the back and say how clever you are.
If the modeling is not accurate, pat yourself on the back and say how clever you are. Thanks to intervention based on your model a worse disaster was avoided.
The great thing with modelling is that they support learning feedback, as data is refined and the modeller is always hungry for such opportunities. .
If that were true then his models should get better alas his models have never changed, he's been out by many factors on every model he's ever done over many years with many different viruses and there ALWAYS over exaggerated, if this guy worked in any public sector that relied on his model he would have been out of work ten years ago.
He's an absolute clown."
It sounds like a slur, unless backed up with evidence from credible sources. What's your expertise with statistical modelling? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If the modeling is accurate, pat yourself on the back and say how clever you are.
If the modeling is not accurate, pat yourself on the back and say how clever you are. Thanks to intervention based on your model a worse disaster was avoided.
The great thing with modelling is that they support learning feedback, as data is refined and the modeller is always hungry for such opportunities. .
If that were true then his models should get better alas his models have never changed, he's been out by many factors on every model he's ever done over many years with many different viruses and there ALWAYS over exaggerated, if this guy worked in any public sector that relied on his model he would have been out of work ten years ago.
He's an absolute clown.
It sounds like a slur, unless backed up with evidence from credible sources. What's your expertise with statistical modelling? "
.
None just look at his past predictions, hell that's the whole point of a model, to give you an accurate picture scenarios, his are utterly useless in the fact there out wildly. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I listened to it and he's an impressive talker,perhaps that's how he convinced the politicians of all his bullshit.
He only let his facade slip when he didn't apologise for letting his girlfriend come around during lockdown |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I listened to it and he's an impressive talker,perhaps that's how he convinced the politicians of all his bullshit.
He only let his facade slip when he didn't apologise for letting his girlfriend come around during lockdown"
He's like a scientific Cummings |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I listened to it and he's an impressive talker,perhaps that's how he convinced the politicians of all his bullshit.
He only let his facade slip when he didn't apologise for letting his girlfriend come around during lockdown
He's like a scientific Cummings"
Although cummings is a crap talker .but has bojo by the balls! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If the modeling is accurate, pat yourself on the back and say how clever you are.
If the modeling is not accurate, pat yourself on the back and say how clever you are. Thanks to intervention based on your model a worse disaster was avoided.
The great thing with modelling is that they support learning feedback, as data is refined and the modeller is always hungry for such opportunities. .
If that were true then his models should get better alas his models have never changed, he's been out by many factors on every model he's ever done over many years with many different viruses and there ALWAYS over exaggerated, if this guy worked in any public sector that relied on his model he would have been out of work ten years ago.
He's an absolute clown.
It sounds like a slur, unless backed up with evidence from credible sources. What's your expertise with statistical modelling? .
None just look at his past predictions, hell that's the whole point of a model, to give you an accurate picture scenarios, his are utterly useless in the fact there out wildly."
That's not the scientific analysis that is required to reach your conclusions |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
i think a lot of these so called scientists and experts are looking after themselves and not being truthful as most will be called to a public enquiry at some point. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
