Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Orthomyxo’s Hero May be the Worst Scientist of All Time

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Frequent commenter Orthomoyxo often cites the Imperial College model that touched off the worldwide panic. Now that the author of that model has resigned in disgrace, NR reports on how awful his record truly is. The whole article bears reading. Highlights:

Indeed, Ferguson’s Imperial College model has been proven wildly inaccurate. To cite just one example, it saw Sweden paying a huge price for no lockdown, with 40,000 COVID deaths by May 1, and 100,000 by June. Sweden now has 2,854 deaths and peaked two weeks ago. As Fraser Nelson, editor of Britain’s Spectator, notes: “Imperial College’s model is wrong by an order of magnitude.”

Indeed, Ferguson has been wrong so often that some of his fellow modelers call him “The Master of Disaster.”

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. He also predicted that up to 150,000 people could die. There were fewer than 200 deaths. 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 up to 50,000 people would likely 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.

Ready to abandon your boy yet Ortho? I doubt it.

The most powerful part of this article is about how Ferguson got Sweden so terribly wrong. He said Sweden wold pay a huge price for no lockdown, with 40,000 COVID deaths by May 1, and 100,000 by June. Sweden now has 2,854 deaths and peaked two weeks ago.

Why is this important to us? Because Ferguson similarly predicted two million deaths in the US if there were no lockdown. When it is pointed out how wildly inaccurate Ferguson’s predictions were, Ortho always responds “but those were the ‘no lockdown” predictions!” Well, Ortho, his no lockdown predictions were also off by orders of magnitude.

Ferguson will go down in history as the greatest charlatan of all time in terms of money lost. He caused a panic that has cost the world literally trillions of dollars. I can’t think of anyone else who comes close to Ortho’s hero in the competition for “sheer economic destruction caused by one man.”

Comments
PS: One online exchange http://thesurvivaldoctor.com/2013/02/14/doctors-debate-universal-health-care-pros-and-cons-from-the-experts/ there is a lot out there just search.kairosfocus
May 12, 2020
May
05
May
12
12
2020
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PDT
EG (& attn Seversky), actually that is false, you are operating in a framework which assumes that such care must come/best comes through the state and is an entitlement, despite serious inefficiencies and concerns that are notorious. You must also recognise that advancements provided by market forces in the US are then transferred as part of the knowledge commons to all countries. That is actually significant and similar to other freedoms that Americans militantly defend which provide "free" benefits for the rest of us. As this is not a main focus of the blog, I will not go into an elaboration. I simply suggest that the position taken by many Americans is not grossly irrational and can be reasonably defended as a policy stance. You may wish to look up debates on state sponsored, tax and debt funded health care vs a more market based approach. A key factor is that a state based system is politically managed, where neither bureaucrats nor politicians are particularly credible as central planners able to manage efficiently such a significant slice of an economy, not to mention the implied huge body of detailed information on people. The American militancy in defence of liberty is a major contribution to the world. We have to think in systems terms and recognise the doctrine of unintended consequences. KFkairosfocus
May 12, 2020
May
05
May
12
12
2020
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PDT
Let's not overlook research that found that that around 66 per cent of all bankruptcies in the US were precipitated by medical issues, Put another way, around 530,000 US families per year were forced to resort to bankruptcy by medical bills they could not afford, in many cases even though they had some degree of health insurance. Once again, in the UK, nobody - but nobody - is forced into bankruptcy by medical bills they cannot pay. It is outrageous that one of the wealthiest countries in the world finds itself unable to provide adequate healthcare that should be the right of all rather than a privilege only for those that can afford it.Seversky
May 11, 2020
May
05
May
11
11
2020
06:34 PM
6
06
34
PM
PDT
KF
EG, dream on, especially WRT the US. KF
Sadly, I agree with you. But it is sad that a country that has brought freedom to much of the world seems to be fine with denying basic health care to a significant percentage of their citizens. It appears that to many (exemplified by Trump), Personal (or national) success is measured by the failure of others.Ed George
May 11, 2020
May
05
May
11
11
2020
06:13 PM
6
06
13
PM
PDT
EG, dream on, especially WRT the US. KFkairosfocus
May 11, 2020
May
05
May
11
11
2020
06:07 PM
6
06
07
PM
PDT
KF
Do you seriously think taxpayer funded bureaucrats will be more efficient and provide better service?
With respect to health care, the numbers say that they are. You appear to have many misconceptions about public health care. You are under the misconception that public health care means that all health services are provided by government employees. In most countries, this is not the case. Government regulates them and sets the maximum they can charge the government for the services provided. Many doctors are self-emloyed. As well many diagnostic services are privately run. What they do not allow is for-profit hospitals. There is also the misconception that in a public system you can't chose your doctor, or get a second (or third) opinion, which is blatantly false. If I have a problem with a specialist, I can ask by family doctor (who is self-employed) for a referral to another specialist. Another benefit of public health care is the cost of drugs. Insulin in the US is ~$300/vial as compared to $50 in Canada. There are certainly plenty of problems with the health care system in Canada, including long wait times for some elective surgeries, and some controversial things that are covered (e.g., abortions and sex reassignment surgery), but there is no politician in Canada prepared to run on privatization of the health system. There is a reason for that.Ed George
May 11, 2020
May
05
May
11
11
2020
02:49 PM
2
02
49
PM
PDT
Kairosfocus: BTW, there is an old marketing saying: you can cut out the middle man but you cannot cut out what he does. Ah yes but you mostly can when you nationalise some things. I have a friend in America who earned her living just entering numbers on spreadsheets for insurance claims. Her job was to look at insurance claims and then look up the condition or procedure noted and find the right numeric code in a book and enter it into a claim form. That was her job. That was it. That job does not exist under a national health plan. It doesn't need to exist. If I have an operation at an NHS hospital there is no need for someone at an insurance company to decide whether or not it is covered. It was done, it is covered. End of. Do you seriously think taxpayer funded bureaucrats will be more efficient and provide better service? No, but they are subject to public scrutiny AND do not owe their allegiance to stock holders. They are alway subject to the laws and can be held accountable. Where a national health scheme is a monopoly, cross subsidised and politically controlled health insurance scheme; often, implicitly so. Worse, it puts a lot of pretty serious information in the hands of bureaucrats whose incentives are to conform to power centres. You can vote out MPs and you can call public servants to account. You have a much better chance of forcing change with a publicly run entity than with some private firm whose sole interest is to make money. And, are you really going to trust some private company with your private data over the government? A company that can make more money by selling that information on and improve their bottom line. Really? We are currently getting a glimpse into just how deeply corrupted such powers can be. I can easily be labelled an idealist and a socialist. And my view depends deeply on the public taking an interest and actually voting. Those dreams may put me in the dreamer category. But I believe it is a fight worth fighting for. Don't give in to the fat cat businessmen who walk away from company failures with their mansions and 12-car garages and vacation homes in the Bahamas. Why give them the control in the first place? You may say I'm a dreamer . . . fair enough. But I'm not the only one. And some things are worth it.JVL
May 11, 2020
May
05
May
11
11
2020
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT
ET: Then they can pay for their own health care. What about those not working caring for their spouses with Alzheimers? What about handicapped individuals who have few marketable skills? What about prisoners? What about recently widowed wives who find out their husbands squandered all the money on online gambling? Okay, maybe some of those categories are not huge. And maybe I'm pushing the point. But there is a point. There are a lot of people in a country as large as the US that for one reason or another cannot pay for their own health care and may not want to have their behaviour dictated to them by the government. What about you? What if your family suffered a difficult time and you were low on cash. Would you give up some of your privacy to be told what to do by the government in exchange for health care? Should you have to make that choice?JVL
May 11, 2020
May
05
May
11
11
2020
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT
EdGeorge: I have seen similar statistics. And, again, if you ask people living in countries with universal health care they always favour it.JVL
May 11, 2020
May
05
May
11
11
2020
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT
JVL, BTW, there is an old marketing saying: you can cut out the middle man but you cannot cut out what he does. Do you seriously think taxpayer funded bureaucrats will be more efficient and provide better service? Where a national health scheme is a monopoly, cross subsidised and politically controlled health insurance scheme; often, implicitly so. Worse, it puts a lot of pretty serious information in the hands of bureaucrats whose incentives are to conform to power centres. We are currently getting a glimpse into just how deeply corrupted such powers can be. KFkairosfocus
May 11, 2020
May
05
May
11
11
2020
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT
JVL:
Seriously, people do not like their behaviour monitored or dictated and their privacy abrogated.
Then they can pay for their own health care.ET
May 11, 2020
May
05
May
11
11
2020
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT
JVL
And, in fact, costs are kept down because there are no middle-men (insurance companies) to claim some of the revenue. And there’s the economics of buying in bulk. Health care costs per capita in the US are significantly higher than those in countries with universal health care, with little benefit to show for it. =>Heath care cost per capita: Canada cost is $4,753: US $9,892 =>Median life expectancy: Canada 82.96 years: US 79.1 =>Infant mortality: Canada 5: US 6.5 =>WHO health ranking: Canada 30th: US 37th. => Maternal mortality: Canada 10/100,000: US 19/100,1000. =>COVID death rate: Canada 130/million: US 245/million.
Ed George
May 11, 2020
May
05
May
11
11
2020
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT
Seversky: As an aside, this could be very handy: Researchers working on smartphone sensor to detect COVID-19 Might as well give it a try! Good for people who have smartphones with the latest operating systems that won't leek personal details. But anything that helps helps.JVL
May 11, 2020
May
05
May
11
11
2020
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT
Asauber: Should involvement in a national health system be mandatory? It kind of has to be doesn't it? Otherwise you don't get the funding and you have to screen everyone who shows up at your facility. And you have to make decisions about when and how to treat based on an individuals' participation. And if you do treat and they're not part of the system then do you bill them? How much? Sent to their insurance company? That's adding that extra layer of bureaucracy. IF you want to make up your own mind and not be subject to a national health service and you're allowed to not pay the taxes and bow out then it won't work and you never gain the benefits. If there is no national health care then you end up with insurance companies and dedicated facilities and people being turned away for treatment. Speaking from my own personal experience, in the US and the UK, I like a system that I never have to submit an insurance form, I never have to wonder if I'm covered, I never have to prove my eligibility. And I'm quite proud of the fact that everyone, no matter how poor or rich, can get care. That feels right to me. Of course that costs. But overall, for the whole country, does it cost more than an insurance based system with a large layer of middle-men between the hospitals and the patients? I can't see how.JVL
May 11, 2020
May
05
May
11
11
2020
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT
"I’m a fan of national health systems" JVL, Should involvement in a national health system be mandatory? Andrewasauber
May 11, 2020
May
05
May
11
11
2020
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT
As an aside, this could be very handy:
Researchers working on smartphone sensor to detect COVID-19
Seversky
May 11, 2020
May
05
May
11
11
2020
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT
EdGeorge: I’m a fan of national health systems but I live in Europe where it’s the standard. And so far no system has collapsed or failed. I’ve had several operations with no extra expense; just higher taxes.JVL
May 11, 2020
May
05
May
11
11
2020
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT
JVL
Knowing some of my relatives in the states I highly doubt that will happen. Based on their facebook postings some people would fight that to the death.
I fear that they literally do that. Universal health care is far from a perfect system but there must be a reason why citizens of countries that have it fight to keep it. A co-worker had a child that required a heart transplant. Their only out-of-pocket costs were TV rental for their son while in the hospital and parking.Ed George
May 11, 2020
May
05
May
11
11
2020
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PDT
ET: I say that universal health care is irrational if you don’t also have a mandatory universal health fitness plan. Yeah. but whose going to pay for all those fitbits and gym memberships? Seriously, people do not like their behaviour monitored or dictated and their privacy abrogated. Seriously, if you tried to implement a mandatory fitness policy you’d be amazed at all the reasons floated as to why it wasn’t fair. Some legitimate.JVL
May 11, 2020
May
05
May
11
11
2020
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT
I say that universal health care is irrational if you don't also have a mandatory universal health fitness plan.ET
May 11, 2020
May
05
May
11
11
2020
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT
COVID 19 deaths are being linked to Vitamin D deficiency A few people have been touting the importance of vitamin D in fighting off this thing. Open everything and have people take the proper OTC supplements- D3 (taken with omega fats); zinc; vitamin C; quercetin. Set strict diet and exercise standards. Adapt, as in get physically fit, or die.ET
May 11, 2020
May
05
May
11
11
2020
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT
Do tell what this alleged “irrational objection to universal health care” is.
It's socialism!!!daveS
May 11, 2020
May
05
May
11
11
2020
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT
Ed George:
If there is a silver lining to this it might be that the US reassesses its irrational objection to universal health care.
Do tell what this alleged "irrational objection to universal health care" is.ET
May 11, 2020
May
05
May
11
11
2020
08:32 AM
8
08
32
AM
PDT
Kairosfocus: JVL, my concerns remain. Understood.JVL
May 11, 2020
May
05
May
11
11
2020
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT
JVL, my concerns remain. KFkairosfocus
May 11, 2020
May
05
May
11
11
2020
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT
Kairosfocus: Do you want panels that explicitly or by hints and implications, triage who lives or dies, or set up schemes where to get drugs approved some must become sacrificial guinea pigs given sugar pills in the face of fast acting deadly plagues? Or people die because waiting lines are out of economic balance through subsidies creating supply-demand gaps? Most people in the UK are very, very proud of the NHS because, while there are problems, the system works well for most people most of the time. And, in fact, costs are kept down because there are no middle-men (insurance companies) to claim some of the revenue. And there's the economics of buying in bulk.JVL
May 11, 2020
May
05
May
11
11
2020
07:14 AM
7
07
14
AM
PDT
EG, scarcity is central to economics. That implies rationing by market or by planners. The complexities of economies undermine central planning. Do you want panels that explicitly or by hints and implications, triage who lives or dies, or set up schemes where to get drugs approved some must become sacrificial guinea pigs given sugar pills in the face of fast acting deadly plagues? Or people die because waiting lines are out of economic balance through subsidies creating supply-demand gaps? Not to mention, no man could buy or sell or access key services save he takes the NUMBER; soon to be, and has a favourable snitch score set by busybodies -- just look at social media. (A foreshadowing of that is playing out here right now as a humanitarian challenge is bureaucratised by beancounters.) KFkairosfocus
May 11, 2020
May
05
May
11
11
2020
07:10 AM
7
07
10
AM
PDT
EdGeorge: If there is a silver lining to this it might be that the US reassesses its irrational objection to universal health care. Knowing some of my relatives in the states I highly doubt that will happen. Based on their facebook postings some people would fight that to the death.JVL
May 11, 2020
May
05
May
11
11
2020
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PDT
If there is a silver lining to this it might be that the US reassesses its irrational objection to universal health care.Ed George
May 11, 2020
May
05
May
11
11
2020
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT
JVL- Unfortunately squandering a national income either by engaging in an unjust war , or by closing an economy is a bad decision in any language. Simply put the way I see it is anyone at high risk self isolate, anyone at low risk carry on with life but be cautious , practical , and sensible , if I had a peanut allergy I would avoid any situation where I may come into contact with them , I would not expect peanut production worldwide to shut down.Marfin
May 11, 2020
May
05
May
11
11
2020
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply