Anonymous ID: 4655b9 May 7, 2020, 9:16 p.m. No.9075366   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>5404

https://lockdownsceptics.org/code-review-of-fergusons-model/

 

More Comments:

Very interesting. I know nothing about the coding aspects, but have long harboured suspicions about Professor Ferguson and his work. The discrepancies between his projections and what is actually observed (and he has modelled many epidemics) is beyond surreal! He was the shadowy figure, incidentally, advising the Govt. on foot and mouth in 2001, research which was described as ‘seriously flawed’, and which decimated the farming industry, via a quite disproportionate and unnecessary cull of animals.

 

I agree with the author that theoretical biologists should not be giving advice to the Govt. on these incredibly important issues at all! Let alone treated as ‘experts’ whose advice must be followed unquestioningly. I don’t know what the Govt. was thinking of. All this needs to come out in a review later, and, in my view, Ferguson needs to shoulder a large part of the blame if his advice is found to have done criminal damage to our country and our economy. This whole business has been handled very badly, not just by the UK but everyone, with the honourable exception of Sweden.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

“On a personal level I’d actually go further and suggest that all academic epidemiology be defunded. This sort of work is best done by the insurance sector. Insurers employ modellers and data scientists, but also employ managers whose job is to decide whether a model is accurate enough for real world usage and professional software engineers to ensure model software is properly tested, understandable and so on. Academic efforts don’t have these people and the results speak for themselves.”

 

Perhaps even more significantly, they pay a price when they get it wrong, a check on overreaching idiocy that appears completely lacking in these “advisory” academic roles in government.

 

See also

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dn_XEDPIeU8&t=593s

Nassim Nicholas Taleb on having Skin In the Game.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Thank you. Are the mainstream media capable of covering this? That is what frightens me.

 

Who is going to be the first to point out that the reason sick peoples weren’t getting hospital beds is because the models were telling us to expect thousands more sick people than there were? How many people died because of this?

 

And what about all this new normal talk? All these assumptions life will change for ever built on fantastic predictions which are being falsified by Swedish and Dutch data?

 

This diktat that we can’t set free young people who are not threatened by the virus because the model says hundreds of thousands would die? All nonsense.

 

This is the greatest academic scandal in our history.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Slightly off topic but I would suggest that some of the climate science work suffers from similar problems and at a comparable scale. Dr Mann’s flawed hockey stick comes to mind; my understanding is that the analysis code has never been released.

 

I am science trained but a HW guy, not SW. I place most of my trust in measurements, especially ones that can be reproduced by others.

 

“I would suggest that some of the climate science work suffers from similar problems”

 

The infamous “Harry_Read_Me” file contained in the original Climate Gate release springs to mind. As I recall, it was a similar tale of a technician desperately trying to make sense of terrible software & coding being used by the “Climate Scientists” – one of whom had to ask for help using Excel…

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mathematical models of epidemics are just simplified representations of reality. One can fit them to data, once one has data, and the fit may be impressive. But as a predictive tool, in the absence of much data, they may be useless. Having experience of mathematical modelling of epidemics, and knowing their limitations, it is bewildering how countries around the world have imposed all these silly lockdown measures, seemingly because of one computer program by someone who isn’t even a mathematician or programmer.

 

It seems to me that politicians, afraid of appearing ignorant when their academic “professor” buddy told them everyone was gonna die, and being pressured by an increasingly hysterical media reporting every individual case of coronavirus, decided lockdown was a good idea. Of course, as time will tell, it was never a good idea. And it won’t be in future either, if another new disease comes along.

Anonymous ID: 4655b9 May 7, 2020, 9:20 p.m. No.9075404   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>9075366

And a few more comments:

As someone who has worked in the areas of Software Maintenance, Legacy Systems, and Software Testing, and has taught Computer Science to MSc level, I have to say I am appalled. A Computer Science student could do much better than this. Why is Prof Ferguson still being employed by the once prestigious Imperial College?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

First, it’s a strawman argument to suggest that professional software developers expect some kind of code purity. Second, when you refer to professionals as “IT geeks”, you are attempting to undermine their professional credibility without addressing their merits of their concerns. It’s just banal rhetoric.

 

Expecting well organized and documented code is not an expectation of purity. It’s a best practice so that when bugs are discovered, they will be far easier to track down when the code is orderly and the programmer’s intentions are documented. Every professional “IT geek” understands this.

 

Look, we all write proof of concept routines when we’re experimenting with different ideas. Novice programmers tend to get so wrapped up with their project that they don’t take the time to rewrite their doodling into something more orderly and reusable. Experienced programmers learn from those mistakes.

 

Lastly, in case you haven’t noticed, the world runs on quality software. We literally trust our lives to it whenever we fly on a plane, for example. I can’t say the same for much of what the geeks in academia generate.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The point is, you want some way to know whether the code has bugs — whether the model is doing what it was written to do. If it’s poorly documented and untested, doesn’t reproduce itself (to some level of consistency) you can’t really.

 

That’s why this is a problem. Most well written systems using stochastics use pseudorandom numbers, that look random, but are fixed based on the ‘seed’ to the random number generator. With the same seed, they give the same results.

 

This didn’t, which is a sign that something broken is going on

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

the only concept that really matters is results.

 

Have Dr Ferguson’s results been valid in the past?

 

Were his predictions for BSE deaths, avian flu deaths and swine flu deaths using this modelling software borne out as roughly correct when looking back at the actuality?

 

The answer is that Mystic Meg would have done a better job than his software.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

“How well he does this job is the relevant question, not his coding skills. Especially not his coding skills 30 years ago judged from a modern day perspective.”

 

respectfully, if one’s brilliant mathematical modelling skills are encoded in ways that undermine the ability to produce coherent/consistent and applicable results based on that model’s logic & assumptions, then of what use is that brilliance? a crap translation of the illiad or shakespeare destroys its power…that’s what crap software instantiations do to ‘complex’ mathematical models….i would also add the obvious: if the imperial model had proved even remotely accurate/consistent, it would not be undergoing this level of (literal) disbelief and scrutiny….i’m sorry but both your criticism and critique is unfail & inaccurate

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The proof is in the reality pudding as they say.

 

Here are the results of Professor Ferguson’s previous modelling efforts.

 

Bird Flu “200m globally” – Actual 282

Swine flu “65,000 UK” – Actual 457

Mad Cow “50-50,000 UK” – Actual 177

 

You do protest a bit much.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I disagree. A stochastic model is simply a deterministic model that has inputs that are generated randomly.

 

For example, let’s say I run a stochastic simulation of a random walk. I build a deterministic model that says if my input number is less than 0.5 then take a step left, else take a step right. I then use a random number generator that gives a me a number between 0 and 1. If I generate 5 numbers and they are all less than 0.5, then the person should have taken 5 steps left. If my output says they are anywhere else other than 5 steps left, then my model is broken and running it multiple times and averaging it doesn’t fix the issue.

 

For example, let’s say my model actually says take a step left if the number is less than 0.5 AND if Neil Ferguson is horny. Unless Neil is horny every second, then my output will be wrong. If Neil is horny only 1/2 of the time, then the random walk will be too far right. Averaging the outputs will not fix that error.

 

And I work in insurance modeling. The comment about insurance modeling is a bit too kind! Better than what Neil is giving us though.

Anonymous ID: 4655b9 May 7, 2020, 9:45 p.m. No.9075708   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>9075573

 

Is that why they have black eyes?

Have they joined an unswitchable club

Like the Hotel California?

See the twin pillars on the package?

They even haveSatan Claws

With FIVE 6-pointed stars on GOLD.

65 minus 56 = 9 the number of birth/fertility

65 + 56 = 121

Let's not notice that number has twin pillars

And 2 in the middle

Or that one of Trump's tweets today was a video that was 1:21 long and on this very topic as follows:

 

The 121 meaning is a vote of confidence from the divine realm. Anything that you put your mind on, you can achieve.

 

Stay motivated and continue making progress. Rely on yourself more and less on other people.

 

The angel number 121 urges you to move forward amidst the obstacles, and to pursue your goals relentlessly.

 

https://trustedpsychicmediums.com/angel-numbers/angel-number-121-meaning/

 

And if you noticed the other video at 1:01 then notice how the topic fits this:

 

https://trustedpsychicmediums.com/angel-numbers/angel-number-101-meaning/

 

Presumably the long 40:39 video has something to do with 40 and 39 but I haven't checked.