QA

Oxford Epidemiologist: Here’s Why That Covid-19 Doomsday Model Is Likely Way Off

Recommended Posts

The China Virus panic being inflamed by the media and politicians is creating misery around the world.    Corrupt leaders are seizing ever more control, not wanting to let a crisis go to waste.

The world does not need to be run in a top-down CCP One World styled repression, under the excuse of combating an invisible enemy.  Modeled after the unwinnable "War on Terror".  Citizens being ordered to give up most of their rights and freedoms under the mistaken guise of "security".

The world is careening ever closer to a hard crash of a totalitarian dystopian collective, ruled by unaccountable power players.  Elections delayed or cancelled, free speech severely curtailed, entrenched vested interests becoming more entrenched.

Perhaps some critical thinking, and listening to some voices of reason, would help scuttle the Doomsday scenarios being played out.

 

Oxford Epidemiologist: Here’s Why That Doomsday Model Is Likely Way Off

Government policy and guidance crafted in an effort to “flatten the curve” of coronavirus-related deaths has largely been based upon an Imperial College London model headed by Professor Neil Ferguson.

The terrifying model shows that as many as 2.2 million Americans could perish from the virus if no action is taken, peaking in June.

However, that model is likely highly flawed, Oxford epidemiologist Sunetra Gupta argues.

Professor Gupta lead a team of researchers at Oxford University in a modeling study which suggests that the virus has been invisibly spreading for at least a month earlier than suspected, concluding that as many as half of the people in the United Kingdom have already been infected by COVID-19.

If this is the case, fewer than one in a thousand who’ve been infected with COVID-19 become sick enough to need hospitalization, leaving the vast majority with mild cases or free of symptoms.

With so many in the U.K. (and potentially the United States) presumably infected, so-called “herd immunity” could kick into effect, dramatically limiting the number of deaths modeled by Ferguson and company.

“The Oxford study is based on a what is known as a ‘susceptibility-infected-recovered model’ of Covid-19, built up from case and death reports from the UK and Italy,” the Financial Times explains. “The researchers made what they regard as the most plausible assumptions about the behaviour of the virus.”

The report continues: “The modelling brings back into focus ‘herd immunity’, the idea that the virus will stop spreading when enough people have become resistant to it because they have already been infected.”

While the notion of “herd immunity” has been essentially dropped in U.K. policy making, “the Oxford results would mean the country had already acquired substantial herd immunity through the unrecognised spread of Covid-19 over more than two months.”

The Financial Times emphasized: “If the findings are confirmed by testing, then the current restrictions could be removed much sooner than ministers have indicated.”

“I am surprised that there has been such unqualified acceptance of the Imperial model,” Gupta criticized.

Of course, the epidemiologist encouraged caution and suggested changes to policy and guidance only be made after more evidence can be presented. ...

(more in the link)

  • Great Response! 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All aboard the Totalitarian Train to Doomsday.  Can't let a crisis go to waste.

 

One world government needed to cope with COVID-19, says former British PM

'There has to be a coordinated global response...We need some sort of working executive,' said former PM Gordon Brown.

A former British Prime Minister has called for the creation of a global government to cope with the coronavirus pandemic.

Gordon Brown, who was both Prime Minister and leader of Britain’s left-wing Labour Party from 2007 until 2010, told British media that the world government he proposed would address the medical and financial crises caused by COVID-19. It would direct efforts to find a vaccine for the virus, organize its production and purchase, and stop profiteers. It would also direct the response of the central banks, protect emerging world markets, and “agree a joint approach to the use of government spending to boost growth.” 

The Guardian reported that Brown would have liked the U.N. Security Council to have been invited to an emergency online meeting of the G20 countries today. The meeting, hosted by Saudi Arabia, is tackling the issue of the novel coronavirus.  

“This is not something that can be dealt with in one country,” Brown said. 

“There has to be a coordinated global response.” [...]

Contemplating the emerging financial crisis, Brown believes that there should be advocacy for the emerging world markets within the G20 countries through his proposed global taskforce. 

“We need some sort of working executive,” he said. [...]

But English Catholic writer Laurence England found Brown’s advocacy more disturbing than naive. 

“Gordon Brown does get it,” he tweeted in response. “The One World Government is about sheer power over populaces, not about helping people. They want a world of slaves." ...

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wishful thinking.

With so many in the U.K. (and potentially the United States) presumably infected, so-called “herd immunity” could kick into effect, dramatically limiting the number of deaths modeled by Ferguson and company.

Those that have the virus and have no symptoms spread it. "Herd immunity" applies only when significant portion of the population gets infected, their immune system fights the disease (that means you must have symptoms, fever, cough, etc.), and only then, if the infected survives, he or she develops the immunity against the virus. Such people then function as a barrier for the virus (they do not spread it, unlike the asymptomatic carrier whose immune system does not consider the virus a threat), nobody gets the specific immunity "magically" without a fight. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There already is a framework for a coordinated global response.

When a patient shows up at any hospital, anywhere, lab techs work to identify the infectious pathogen. When it appears to be novel under microscope and remains unidentified with standard tests, they send it off for sequencing. While this is going on, they undertake isolation measures on the patient. When the sequence comes back as something novel, the local public health organization springs into action to contain the spread. Part of this is contacting CDC equivalents worldwide and passing on all information.

For this to happen, there are 2 pillars required in the society:

1. Freedom of speech; Everyone involved must be allowed to speak freely about what's going on, with whomever they wish.

2. Independent judiciary; Freedom FROM the government; Doctors, scientists and lab techs must not be worried about being taken away in a black van for alerting others of the situation. Or even just investigating the situation.

 

From now on, civilized countries must demand that these pillars of civilization exist in every another country. We must not accept being told to mind our own business. We can clearly see that the absence of these freedoms IS our business. We are all paying the price today for looking away in order to keep our supply of cheap goods coming.

 

 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Qanoil said:

The China Virus panic being inflamed by the media and politicians is creating misery around the world.    Corrupt leaders are seizing ever more control, not wanting to let a crisis go to waste.

The world does not need to be run in a top-down CCP One World styled repression, under the excuse of combating an invisible enemy.  Modeled after the unwinnable "War on Terror".  Citizens being ordered to give up most of their rights and freedoms under the mistaken guise of "security".

The world is careening ever closer to a hard crash of a totalitarian dystopian collective, ruled by unaccountable power players.  Elections delayed or cancelled, free speech severely curtailed, entrenched vested interests becoming more entrenched.

Perhaps some critical thinking, and listening to some voices of reason, would help scuttle the Doomsday scenarios being played out.

 

Oxford Epidemiologist: Here’s Why That Doomsday Model Is Likely Way Off

Government policy and guidance crafted in an effort to “flatten the curve” of coronavirus-related deaths has largely been based upon an Imperial College London model headed by Professor Neil Ferguson.

The terrifying model shows that as many as 2.2 million Americans could perish from the virus if no action is taken, peaking in June.

However, that model is likely highly flawed, Oxford epidemiologist Sunetra Gupta argues.

Professor Gupta lead a team of researchers at Oxford University in a modeling study which suggests that the virus has been invisibly spreading for at least a month earlier than suspected, concluding that as many as half of the people in the United Kingdom have already been infected by COVID-19.

If this is the case, fewer than one in a thousand who’ve been infected with COVID-19 become sick enough to need hospitalization, leaving the vast majority with mild cases or free of symptoms.

With so many in the U.K. (and potentially the United States) presumably infected, so-called “herd immunity” could kick into effect, dramatically limiting the number of deaths modeled by Ferguson and company.

“The Oxford study is based on a what is known as a ‘susceptibility-infected-recovered model’ of Covid-19, built up from case and death reports from the UK and Italy,” the Financial Times explains. “The researchers made what they regard as the most plausible assumptions about the behaviour of the virus.”

The report continues: “The modelling brings back into focus ‘herd immunity’, the idea that the virus will stop spreading when enough people have become resistant to it because they have already been infected.”

While the notion of “herd immunity” has been essentially dropped in U.K. policy making, “the Oxford results would mean the country had already acquired substantial herd immunity through the unrecognised spread of Covid-19 over more than two months.”

The Financial Times emphasized: “If the findings are confirmed by testing, then the current restrictions could be removed much sooner than ministers have indicated.”

“I am surprised that there has been such unqualified acceptance of the Imperial model,” Gupta criticized.

Of course, the epidemiologist encouraged caution and suggested changes to policy and guidance only be made after more evidence can be presented. ...

(more in the link)

Meanwhile Trish Reagan was just fired from Fox Business for basically saying the same thing. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Yoshiro Kamamura said:

Wishful thinking.

With so many in the U.K. (and potentially the United States) presumably infected, so-called “herd immunity” could kick into effect, dramatically limiting the number of deaths modeled by Ferguson and company.

Those that have the virus and have no symptoms spread it. "Herd immunity" applies only when significant portion of the population gets infected, their immune system fights the disease (that means you must have symptoms, fever, cough, etc.), and only then, if the infected survives, he or she develops the immunity against the virus. Such people then function as a barrier for the virus (they do not spread it, unlike the asymptomatic carrier whose immune system does not consider the virus a threat), nobody gets the specific immunity "magically" without a fight. 

Most cases of the virus infection show no symptoms at all, not even slight ones. For those, immune response is sufficiently strong to wipe out the virus quickly before any damage is done. 

None of the asymptomatics are so because their body "didn't fight" the virus, If they had no immune response then there has to be a pathology because the virus is progressing in their body unchecked. 

You are obviously not understanding it. Go look at Wikipedia to get a basic understanding. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Meanwhile Trish Reagan was just fired from Fox Business for basically saying the same thing. 

More people are questioning the official panic predictions.

Laura Ingraham Is First Mainstream Reporter to Discuss Faulty WHO Coronavirus Mortality Rate that Led to Global Panic (VIDEO)

On Friday night Laura Ingraham was the first mainstream reporter to question the WHO’s suggested mortality rate of the coronavirus of 3.4%.  [...]

 

There are two main organizations behind the global coronavirus panic.

** The first was World Health Organization’s Director General, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, who claimed in a press conference in early March that the fatality rate for the coronavirus was many multiples that of the fatality rate of the common flu. Ghebreyesus claimed the coronavirus had a 3.4% mortality rate and incorrectly compared this inaccurate number to the annual estimated flu mortality rate of 0.1%.

** And the second organization was the Imperial College study from London that claimed half a million Brits would die in the pandemic and 2 million Americans would perish from COVID-19.

They were both wrong.  [...]

 

On Thursday the man behind the Imperial College study backtracked and now says 20,000 UK citizens may die from the coronavirus and not the original half a million they predicted.

This was a HUGE development.

On Thursday, while answering questions with President Trump and the rest of the White House coronavirus task force, Dr. Deborah Birx admitted that the initial coronavirus death estimates were too extreme.  [...]

 

 

  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

The worldwide globalist elites, their bogus academics and news media hacks have done everything they could to inflame the fears of the people globally. The Chinese Communist Party hid early results, continue to hide real results and are now doing their best to appear as the leaders in helping Italy and other countries defeat the CCP Virus. 

As I see this flu, it is no worse than the Swine Flu that hit under the Obama Administration and got relatively very little notoriety by comparison. Because of all the panic economies around the world are suffering far more than needed. 

America still has only has half of the number of cases that an equivalent population in Western and Southern Europe have. Our urban areas are the hardest hit and that is to be expected. We have belatedly started to treat our patients with the advisable medicines. 

Edited by ronwagn
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

Italy's death rate is roughly 10%. Go figure, the rate of the last SARS outbreak, and this is also SARS so let's call it what it is. SARS-COV-2, not covid-19. 

Spain's death rate is also similar to Italy. 

Which Is the rate I assumed way back when i didnt believe China's 2.3% 

 

Edited by J.mo
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Qanoil said:

 

On Thursday the man behind the Imperial College study backtracked and now says 20,000 UK citizens may die from the coronavirus and not the original half a million they predicted.

 

 

 

 

He didn't really backtrack:
https://twitter.com/neil_ferguson/status/1243294815200124928

 

From the WSJ editorial board:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/worst-case-coronavirus-science-11585351059

Quote

Give Neil Ferguson a break. Nearly two weeks ago Mr. Ferguson, an epidemiologist with Imperial College London, issued a report on Covid-19. Much of the public attention focused on his worst-case projection that there might as many as 2.2 million American and 510,000 British deaths. Fewer paid attention to the caveat that this was “unlikely,” and based on the assumption that nothing was done to control it.

The report was one reason that led Prime Minister Boris Johnson to change policy and lock Britain down. Under the Imperial College model, the projection was that the steps Mr. Johnson had been taking would cut the number of projected deaths in half but still leave about a quarter million British dead.

Now Mr. Ferguson has clarified his estimates. He told Parliament this week that he now reckons the number of deaths in the U.K. “would be unlikely to exceed 20,000”—and that many would be older people who would have died from other maladies this year. With the measures now in place, he believes Britain’s health service won’t be overwhelmed.

Critics are bashing him for the revisions, but not so fast. Mr. Ferguson didn’t change his model so much as adjust for new circumstances. In particular he believes that Covid-19 is more transmissible than he previously had thought—but because strong measures had been implemented, deaths would be far lower than his worst-case scenario.

There’s a warning here about science and journalism. Surely if we hope to neutralize a pandemic we don’t fully understand, we need to encourage a culture in which scientists feel able to adapt and clarify with new evidence. Scientists would also help themselves if, in explaining their findings, they would be more candid about the assumptions and variables.

This goes double for the press. It’s no secret that the press’s reputation has taken a credibility hit in this crisis. Nor is it any secret why: Instead of a presentation of what we know and don’t, too often the focus has been political scapegoating or sensationalizing.

This week on “CBS This Morning,” U.S. Surgeon-General Jerome Adams complained about a press that runs with projections “based on worst-case scenarios.” He was talking about ventilators, but his point applies across the board. Deborah Birx, coordinator for the White House coronavirus task force, said the same regarding apocalyptic forecasts not backed by data about hospitals having to issue Do Not Resuscitate orders.

In the battle to save lives and address the scourge of Covid-19, good information is paramount. Credit to Neil Ferguson for clarifying his projections when the situation changed.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, J.mo said:

Italy's death rate is roughly 10%. Go figure, the rate of the last SARS outbreak, and this is also SARS so let's call it what it is. SARS-COV-2, not covid-19. 

Spain's death rate is also similar to Italy. 

Which Is the rate I assumed way back when i didnt believe China's 2.3% 

 

It all depends on how you manipulate the statistics. You have to wait until the maximum number of people are tested and then divide by the deaths after the epidemic is over. Any other results are just preliminary estimates based on insufficient data. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Meanwhile Trish Reagan was just fired from Fox Business for basically saying the same thing. 

And the 'kiddies' keep right on trashing all that 'Daddy' worked so hard to  build.  Entitled TWITS!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UK's Daily Mail

PETER HITCHENS: There’s powerful evidence this Great Panic is foolish, yet our freedom is still broken and our economy crippled

[...] 

Crucially, those who began by claiming that we faced half a million deaths from the coronavirus in this country have now greatly lowered their estimate. Professor Neil Ferguson was one of those largely responsible for the original panic. He or others from Imperial college have twice revised his terrifying prophecy, first to fewer than 20,000 and then on Friday to 5,700.

He says intensive care units will probably cope. And he conceded a point made by critics of the panic policy – that two-thirds of people who die from coronavirus in the next nine months would most likely have died this year from other causes.

He tried to claim that the shutdown of the country had led to this violent backtrack, claiming that it was ‘social distancing strategies’ which had brought about his amazing climbdown. How could he possibly know either that this had happened, or that it would happen, or that there was any connection between the two?

It is very hard to see by what means he could know any of these things. Could he have softened his stance because of the publication early last week of a rival view, from distinguished scientists at Oxford University, led by Sunetra Gupta, Professor of theoretical epidemiology? It suggests that fewer than one in a thousand of those infected with Covid-19 become ill enough to need hospital treatment.

The vast majority develop very mild symptoms or none at all. Millions may already have had it.

This report is being unfairly sneered at by Government toadies, but we shall see. It seems unlikely that Oxford University would have bungled their work.

And it is obvious that a few days of raggedly enforced house arrest could not have made so much real difference. Even those who believe in these shutdowns think they take two weeks to have any effect.

[...] 

Any government, using the same pretext, can repeatedly put us through this misery, impoverishment and confinement. In the end, like the peoples of other despotisms, we will be grateful to be allowed out at all.

As things stand, the Johnson Government is like a doctor, confronted with a patient suffering from pneumonia. ‘This is serious,’ says the doctor. ‘I have never seen anything like this. Unless I act radically, you will die terribly.’

He then proposes to treat the pneumonia by amputating the patient’s left leg, saying this method has been used successfully in China. The trusting patient agrees. The patient eventually recovers from pneumonia, as he would have done anyway. The doctor proclaims that his treatment, though undoubtedly painful and radical, was a great success. But the patient now has only one leg, and a very large hospital bill which he cannot afford to pay.

When I argue against this folly, I am accused of not caring about the deaths of the old. I am old. It is false. I care as much about the deaths of others as anybody. But as a result of taking my stand, I have received private support from people inside the NHS seriously disturbed by what is going on.   [...]

  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.