By JOHN HINDERAKER | POWERLINE
The point is so elementary that it should not be necessary to state: a model is
not evidence. It is a theory expressed in arithmetic terms. A theory is either
validated or disproved by observation. A model that is contradicted by
experience is simply wrong, and is useless. History is littered with theories
that sounded plausible at the time, but were invalidated by experience.
Here in Minnesota, home-grown models #1, #2 and #3 were
rolled out, hyped, and then shelved in short order as each turned out to be
wildly off the mark. Though having served, allegedly, as the principal basis
for policy decisions that destroyed thousands of small businesses and blighted
the lives of many thousands of children, they have been quietly forgotten as an
embarrassment.
In Great Britain, models apparently have retained some
currency, despite being always wrong. The Telegraph brings
us up to date: “How the UK’s Covid reopening has proved Imperial’s
pessimistic modelling wrong.”
Asked on BBC Radio Four’s Today Programme
about the latest data showing Britain is enjoying an eight-month low in
coronavirus deaths and infections, Professor Neil Ferguson said on Tuesday:
“The data is very encouraging, and very much in line with what we expected.”
This is the guy who predicted millions of
Wuhan deaths but nevertheless violated his own guidelines to arrange a liaison
with his illicit mistress.
As it was on the radio it was impossible to
tell whether this was said with a straight face, but we must assume it was.
It is a wonder that nobody choked on their
morning toast, for if Imperial modelling has stood for anything in this
crisis, it is relentless pessimism. Plummeting figures were certainly not
predicted by its researchers.
The difference this time is that the
Government has pressed ahead with reopening despite the doom-mongering, and so
has proven the models wrong.
Details at the link. Ferguson and his Imperial model
were wrong, wildly wrong, about everything.
Under the February modelling which informed
the roadmap, hospitalisations should be starting to tick up around now, but
there is no evidence of that happening, with cases down 11 per cent in the
past week.
On Tuesday, Prof Ferguson admitted that the
link between infections and deaths had now been broken, and that up to 90
per cent of people who would have ordinarily ended up in hospital after
contracting Covid would no longer be admitted.
Hey, off by a factor of 90%? That isn’t bad for a
liberal.
Ferguson’s Imperial model grossly overestimated the
impact of re-opening Britain’s schools, an empirical fact that would be
important for the U.S. if corrupt teachers’ unions did not run public
education in this country. Then there is the model’s inept projections of
the impact of vaccinations:
Vaccine efficacy was badly underestimated,
too. In the February modelling, one dose of
AstraZeneca was assumed to protect between 56 and 70 per cent of people
from hospitalisation and death. In reality, it was up to 94 per cent.
In fact, the only thing that Imperial
modelling has going for it, was it was slightly more optimistic than the London
School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, which predicted an even more
devastating third wave.
Well, there’s that. It is curious, but the one thing
that all the models I know of had in common is that they grossly overestimated
the health consequences of the Wuhan virus under various conditions. They
thus served as the basis for hysterical government actions that limited
personal freedom to an unprecedented degree, but that turned out to do no
good at all–a fact that no model predicted, and about which not a single
government entity, seemingly, is embarrassed.
Coincidence? I don’t think so. If there is a silver lining to the covid fiasco, it could be increased public skepticism of models and other theories that lack empirical support. But for such skepticism to take root would likely require honest news reporting, so don’t hold your breath.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2021/05/models-are-not-evidence.php
