2 million deaths! 2 million deaths! 2 million deaths! The supposedly smart guys at the Imperial College in Great Britain shrieked over 2 million million Americans would die from the Wuhan virus if the entire country didn't lock down. However, The American Institute for Economic Research reported Imperial College wildly overestimated Covid-19 deaths as it scared the planet into one massive shutdown.
Dr. Phil Magness wrote:
One year later we may now look back to see how Imperial College’s international projections performed, paying closer attention to the small number of countries that bucked his lockdown recommendations. The results are not pretty for Ferguson, and point to a clear pattern of modeling that systematically exaggerated the projected death tolls of Covid-19 in the absence of lockdowns and related NPIs.
Figure II compares the Imperial College model’s projections for its “social distancing” scenario and “unmitigated” scenario against the actual outcomes at the one-year mark after its release. These projections reflect an assumed replication rate (R0) of 2.4 – the most conservative scenario they considered, meaning Imperial’s upper range of projections anticipated substantially higher death tolls. The countries examined here – Sweden, Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea – are distinctive for either eschewing lockdowns and similar aggressive NPI restrictions entirely or for relying on them in a much more limited scope than Imperial College advised. The United States, where 43 of 50 states adopted lockdowns of some form, is also included for comparison.
As can be seen, Imperial College wildly overstated the projected deaths in each country under both its “unmitigated” scenario and its NPI-reliant “social distancing” scenario – including by orders of magnitude in several cases.
Similar exaggerations may be found in almost every other country where Imperial released projections, even as most of them opted to lock down. The Imperial team’s most conservative model predicted 332,000 deaths in France under lockdown-based “social distancing” and 621,000 with “unmitigated” spread. At the one year mark, France had incurred 94,000 deaths. Belgium was expected to incur a minimum of 46,000 fatalities under NPI mitigation, and 91,000 with uncontrolled spread. At the one year anniversary of the model, it reached 23,000 deaths – among the highest tolls in the world on a per capita basis and an example of extreme political mismanagement of the pandemic under heavy lockdown to be sure, but still only half of Imperial College’s most conservative projection for NPI mitigation.
Just over one year ago, the epidemiology modeling of Neil Ferguson and Imperial College played a preeminent role in shutting down most of the world. The exaggerated forecasts of this modeling team are now impossible to downplay or deny, and extend to almost every country on earth. Indeed, they may well constitute one of the greatest scientific failures in modern human history.
Ferguson has a history of making similar exagerrations. John Fund reported in National Review last year:
Ferguson was behind the disputed research that sparked the mass culling of eleven million sheep and cattle during the 2001 outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. Charlotte Reid, a farmer’s neighbor, recalls: “I remember that appalling time. Sheep were left starving in fields near us. Then came the open air slaughter. The poor animals were panic stricken. It was one of the worst things I’ve witnessed. And all based on a model — if’s but’s and maybe’s.”
In 2002, Ferguson predicted that, by 2080, up to 150,000 people could die from exposure to BSE (mad cow disease) in beef. In the U.K., there were only 177 deaths from BSE.
In 2005, Ferguson predicted that up to 150 million people could be killed from bird flu. In the end, only 282 people died worldwide from the disease between 2003 and 2009.
In 2009, a government estimate, based on Ferguson’s advice, said a “reasonable worst-case scenario” was that the swine flu would lead to 65,000 British deaths. In the end, swine flu killed 457 people in the U.K.
Last March, Ferguson admitted that his Imperial College model of the COVID-19 disease was based on undocumented, 13-year-old computer code that was intended to be used for a feared influenza pandemic, rather than a coronavirus. Ferguson declined to release his original code so other scientists could check his results. He only released a heavily revised set of code last week, after a six-week delay. Rest of article.
22 comments:
Pfffttt!!!!
This very survivable cold was politicized for "Money, money, money, money...... Money". Read a banner this AM that Commie Harris is addressing the UN about our NEXT Pandemic. Sounds like it's already in the pipe.
Say it with me...
Scamdemic
Both 45 and 46 have done the bidding of their masters and put trillions of dollars of new national debt on the books of the Global Central Bankers. They will collect billions more interest from the tax payers for the next millennia.
All according to plan.
You will pay the tax.
You will eat the bugs.
You will own nothing.
And you will be happy.
Never heard of imperial college or the quoted conservative group that is claiming they are wrong. Does anyone use legitimate sources anymore or is all this garbage coming straight from Facebook?
Yes, mistakes happen. This was all to protect people. And despite this, the science is still settled on made made global warming.
KF who cares about facts? The narrative is all that matters.
And we're supposed to assume this is just incompetence.
Oh my!
The silly CV 19 arguments over stats about "lock down" and deaths continue to ignore critical cultural factors in the countries.
In deaths, the age and wealth of the populations at risk and their access to early treatment may have mattered as well as religion ( see India vs New Zealand).
Whether or not a significant percentage of a population did indeed follow protocols and self-quarantine or shelter despite what their government decreed is ignored as well. ( See Florida where their elderly population is comparatively large and they lined up for vaccines in high percentages . Like here, many who voted for Trump weren't willing to risk their life for him but had voted financial self interest.
Nor is whether or not travel was halted in a timely and scientifically useful manner considered.( It doesn't help if you aren't testing or quarantining citizens allowed to travel but only banning non-citizens.)
I suspect if the findings a doctor who is dissecting the brains of corpses of those who have had CV19 ( including those who were unaware they had it) gets duplicated, we may discover too late that the insanity we are seeing was caused by the brain damage he found. The damage on those thin slices of the brain should be a worry to the deniers. Maybe you and your family lucked out or you doomed yourselves to forever making bad decisions.
So how does the 600k death toll measure up to the projections that were coming from the right of less than 100k?
"So how does the 600k death toll measure up to the projections that were coming from the right of less than 100k?" I have to question how many of the reported Covid deaths are actually directly related to Covid. I believe when this is looked at in the future we will see a lower number of direct Covid deaths. There was never a firm definition of Covid death given. The ones I saw were very ambiguous and I'm sure that some were destined to die regardless of Covid.
Saying “I believe” when talking about statistics is an excellent way to make others stop listening, 12:17.
@3:29
I’m bot 12:17 but all of this crap based on faith. Literally media induced religion. Had the media not worked up a panic each day, you would’ve hardly noticed a difference in the world around you. Old people would die, plus already sick and obese people would die prematurely. Same as always.
Forecasting the future is easy if you have limited variables, but here we have quite a few (masking, traveling restrictions, hand washing, etc times 350 million people, you can calculate...). An estimate plus minus factor ten (anything between 200 000 and 20 000 000) is good in my eyes. Also, we don’t now yet how many will die in the future, either from an acute infection or from long term symptoms.
(I am a scientist, I know many of you will hold it against me...)
They didn't know about the significant number of asymptomatic cases at the time. They were working with the best numbers they had. That's the way science works, evaluate the evidence and make your decisions accordingly. Keep reviewing and adjust your protocols as you refine your conclusions.
Who was closer to right though? We've had almost 600,000 deaths, so the actual deaths were about 1/3 of what they initially claimed. On the other hand, you had the "it's nothing but the flu" crowed that refused to reconsider the actual effect of the disease even as the actual death toll rose to ten times higher than even a bad flu year. We crossed 60,000 deaths in just a few months, more than the flu kills in a year, and still they screamed "survival of the fittest, it's only killing the old, take your Vitamin D, TEAM CHAOS!!!!"
Who actually got it closer? That's right, the Imperial College.
You may offend the Covidian Cultists with these insensitive facts.
I keep seeing the pro-virus crowd estatically pointing to the 600,000 death scoreboard as if they have been vindicated by their fears. Nobody believes that number. Covid deaths are classified as PIC's on the CDC totals (pneumonia, influenza, and Covid). So any PIC death is a Covid death, counted among the 600K.
That's not to say that covid isn't real. It is dangerous for the elderly and those with comorbidities. So take care if you are in that group; consider the vacccine. But in no way have we ever seen the push to force an experimental vaccine on those who don't want it and don't need it.
Don't live in fear. Get the kids back in school.
We would be so much better off if the scientists had consulted you geniuses at the start of the pandemic.
Damn the truth. Pick your agenda and stick with it regardless which side of sane good sense you choose to live on.
Where is that queen of the Chicken Littles, Better Than Ever?
lets not forget that this is the same researcher that was clamoring for London to be shut down ...while he was caught breaking his own recommended quarantine rules by.... meeting up with his married (not to him) lover across town.
yeah...experts. all high and moral and really concerned about whats best for YOU.
We need better experts.
"Saying “I believe” when talking about statistics is an excellent way to make others stop listening, 12:17."
Almost as 'excellent' as noticing the post at 10:29 is actually beginning a FIFTH paragraph!
Post a Comment