![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/angry.net\/blog2\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/danger-science.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\n<\/p>\n
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<\/b><\/a>:<\/p>\n The heralded model United Kingdom<\/a> experts have largely used to guide their coronavirus<\/a> policies is \u201ctotally unreliable,\u201d according to experts. <\/b><\/p>\n The criticisms follow a series of policy turnabouts, including Prime Minister Boris Johnson<\/a>\u2019s decision to extend the national lockdown. The United States also used the model<\/a>, 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. <\/b><\/p>\n Well, in Prime Minister Johnson\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n Experts have derided the coding from Professor Neil Ferguson<\/a>, warning that it is a \u201cbuggy mess that looks more like a bowl of angel hair pasta than a finely tuned piece of programming.\u201d <\/b><\/p>\n \u201cIn 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,\u201d David Richards, co-founder of British data technology company WANdisco, told the Daily Telegraph<\/a>. <\/b><\/p>\n An interesting side note on this Neil Ferguson. He couldn’t be bothered to follow the guidelines he\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n 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. <\/b><\/p>\n 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\u2019t 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 \u201cworks.\u201d<\/p>\n The Imperial model<\/a> 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. <\/b><\/p>\n To be honest, a lot of code is unreadable, however that\u2019s why they put in comments, so other programmers can look at it and go, \u201cSo that was what that clown was trying to do.\u201d Still, a good programmer knows that his code will probably be reviewed by others down the line. Apparently, Ferguson isn\u2019t all that good a coder.<\/p>\n 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. <\/b><\/p>\n \u201cThere 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,\u201d the Edinburgh researchers wrote on the Github file.<\/strong><\/p>\n I\u2019m not a programmer, however I\u2019ve had to use crappy code and I\u2019ve run into the same issues. When you bring it up to the developer, their usual response is \u201cWell it works fine for me. You must be doing something wrong.\u201d That excuse works until other coders start digging into the code to fix the incompetent monkey\u2019s mess.<\/p>\n A fix was provided, but it was the first of many bugs found within the program. <\/b><\/p>\n There is a little ditty in the I.T. world regarding bug fixes. It goes \u201c99 bugs found in the code, 99 bugs are found. You take one down, patch it around, 142 bugs found in the code.\u201d It looks like there is going to be a lot more then 142 bugs in this waste of bytes.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n