The Great Panicdemic of 2020: About that model used for the lock down

Good day all. We hope you’re enjoying the enforced house arrest we’ve all been sentenced to. After all, it was recommended that the governors kill the American economy “To flatten the curve.” However, there seems to be a problem.

It appearss that the computer model that everyone is using is, frankly, about as accurate as all the global warming models have been. In other words, dead wrong. Here are the details from Fox News:

The heralded model United Kingdom experts have largely used to guide their coronavirus policies is “totally unreliable,” according to experts.

The criticisms follow a series of policy turnabouts, including Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s decision to extend the national lockdown. The United States also used the model, which predicted upwards of 2.2 million deaths in the US without proper action. The prediction helped influence the White House to adopt a more serious approach to the pandemic.

Well, in Prime Minister Johnson’s defense, he did catch this thing and was rather sick, however, like most people who catch the Wuhan Flu, he is recovering nicely. The issue is, this model is apparently garbage and has no actual basis in science should concern everyone.

Experts have derided the coding from Professor Neil Ferguson, warning that it is a “buggy mess that looks more like a bowl of angel hair pasta than a finely tuned piece of programming.”

In our commercial reality, we would fire anyone for developing code like this and any business that relied on it to produce software for sale would likely go bust,” David Richards, co-founder of British data technology company WANdisco, told the Daily Telegraph.

An interesting side note on this Neil Ferguson. He couldn’t be bothered to follow the guidelines he’s been forcing on the rest of the world. He got caught stepping out to get a little nookie from his girlfriend, who happens to be married to someone else. I doubt his wife is very amused by this.

Ferguson, the virus modeler from Imperial College London and a scientific adviser to the government, warned on March 16 that 500,000 people could die from the pandemic without significant action. Prime Minister Boris Johnson responded by imposing a national lockdown, which has only been loosened within the last week.

I have a sneaking suspicion that Prime Minister Johnson, after he gets a chance to review all this, is not going to be very happy with Ferguson, and may look at opening things up much sooner. So would we if we didn’t have so many political hacks who have become drunk with power. In any case, here is how that load of horse dung pretending to be a computer model “works.”

The Imperial model works by using code to simulate transport links, population size, social networks and healthcare provisions to predict how coronavirus would spread. Researchers released the code behind it, which developers have criticized as being unreadable.

To be honest, a lot of code is unreadable, however that’s why they put in comments, so other programmers can look at it and go, “So that was what that clown was trying to do.” Still, a good programmer knows that his code will probably be reviewed by others down the line. Apparently, Ferguson isn’t all that good a coder.

Scientists from the University of Edinburgh have further claimed that it is impossible to reproduce the same results from the same data using the model. The team got different results when they used different machines, and even different results from the same machines.

“There appears to be a bug in either the creation or re-use of the network file. If we attempt two completely identical runs, only varying in that the second should use the network file produced by the first, the results are quite different,” the Edinburgh researchers wrote on the Github file.

I’m not a programmer, however I’ve had to use crappy code and I’ve run into the same issues. When you bring it up to the developer, their usual response is “Well it works fine for me. You must be doing something wrong.” That excuse works until other coders start digging into the code to fix the incompetent monkey’s mess.

A fix was provided, but it was the first of many bugs found within the program.

There is a little ditty in the I.T. world regarding bug fixes. It goes “99 bugs found in the code, 99 bugs are found. You take one down, patch it around, 142 bugs found in the code.” It looks like there is going to be a lot more then 142 bugs in this waste of bytes.

Models must be capable of passing the basic scientific test of producing the same results given the same initial set of parameters…otherwise, there is simply no way of knowing whether they will be reliable,” said Michael Bonsall, Professor of Mathematical Biology at Oxford University.

I wonder, does Ferguson also write models for Global Warming? I ask this because it’s been long known that if you load historical data into those modes, they don’t even come close to what actually happened.

A spokesperson for the Imperial College COVID19 Response Team said: “The U.K. Government has never relied on a single disease model to inform decision-making. As has been repeatedly stated, decision-making around lockdown was based on a consensus view of the scientific evidence, including several modelling studies by different academic groups.”

Oh I think they did or they would have put out a list of other programs that were used to make the decision to trash the world economy and throw the world into a depression. What I’m wondering now, has president Trump been informed of this fiasco? Further, have the governors who used this disaster to shut everything down been told? I suspect some are aware, or are being made aware.

The question is, will they revise what they’re doing? In most cases, the safe answer is Hell No! Many are going to double down. Why? Because they can’t admit they made a multi-trillion dollar mistake. It’s time for we the people to step up and open up and to Hell with the likes of Whitsett, Inslee and Newsom. The sad thing is, this story will be buried by the Propagandists of the Uniparty. It’s up to you, my one or two readers, to pass this along and get the word out.


1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)

~The Angry Webmaster~

Share Button