Fauci and Ferguson got it wrong?

[itwaseverthus]

This UK GP seems to show that the calculations which led to lockdown were way off by a factor of 10!

drmalcolmkendrick.org/2020/09/04/covid-why-terminology-really-matters/?unapproved=176484&moderation-hash=ff1a297ff4f26e7148c6491b15a8b89e#comment-176484

Fergussen regularly gets it wrong his swine flu prediction Vs what happened was laughable.

Thank you for posting this. Bumping it for you

That article is so riddled with errors and contradictions, it's hard to believe it was written by a GP.

But then when you Google the author, he is speaking at this "anti lockdown" protest in Edinburgh on Saturday which seems to be attracting a similar type of crowd to the Trafalgar Square protest with David Icke last weekend, so perhaps not that surprising after all: www.reddit.com/r/Edinburgh/comments/ijd27f/just_peeled_this_shite_off_the_outside_wall_of_a/

I believe Fauci has changed his position now, after all that. I saw something the other day.

And Ferguson’s data crunching method has been viewed with suspicion by peers.

From what I've read it wasn't the forecasted number of deaths that led to lockdown, but the (well-founded) worry that the NHS would be overwhelmed with patients requiring hospitalisation and ITU in particular. Although the NHS was never overwhelmed as a whole, in some parts of the country ITUs were well over normal capacity. I dread to think what would have happened without lockdown from this point of view.

Because one GP knows better than two of the world's leading medical specialists

You might want to look at his opinions on the link between high cholesterol and heart disease before citing Kendrick as a reliable source. He's dangerous.

Because one GP knows better than two of the world's leading medical specialists

Fergussen models are frequently incorrect, he didn't even ought to be employed.

I have read his book The Great Cholesterol Con ChaChaCha2012 and I believe it's based on sound science. I see this recent paper says similar "The negative results of numerous cholesterol lowering randomised controlled trials call into question the validity of using low density lipoprotein cholesterol as a surrogate target for the prevention of cardiovascular disease." ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2020/08/23/bmjebm-2020-111413

Do you call everyone who holds a different opinion dangerous?

CoffeeandCroissant what are the contradictions and errors?

So 60k excess deaths are nit enough?

So 60k excess deaths are nit enough?

Still doesn't mean people who were 'top' scientists got it wrong, including the WHO who is comprised of top scientists but still got it wrong.

@HeresMe

So 60k excess deaths are nit enough?

Still doesn't mean people who were 'top' scientists got it wrong, including the WHO who is comprised of top scientists but still got it wrong.

There’s a difference between ‘got it wrong’ and ‘made decisions based on current knowledge which changed when knowledge changed’. That’s what science does: reacts to knew knowledge.

Have you seen fergussen estimates for swine flu , or bird flu, in swine flu he predicted 65000 it was 457. The guy hasn't even learnt from his mistakes,and whilst people vilify Cummings he also broke rules the guy is a disgrace.

The Who didn't listen to Taiwan when dealing with China that was nothing to do with knowledge.

I have read his book The Great Cholesterol Con ChaChaCha2012 and I believe it's based on sound science. I see this recent paper says similar

It's not. He had a 2016 paper ripped to shreds for only choosing studies which supported his idea that cholesterol doesn't cause heart disease and ignoring those which do not.

A lot of his statements about how terminology is often poorly communicated to the public are true; but the idea that the experts in disease control don't know the correct termionology and are basing all their predictions on one model which used a wrong number from a jounal is laughable.

I could pick apart where he also mixes up terminology in the article, explain the information he doesn't say and list every bad faith assumption he makes, but none of that is the point:

In Science we reach conclusions by evidence and peer review. We listen to the consensus of the experts in the field- not one outlier with no expertise in epidemiology. Many early predictions about Covid-19 will change, the people making their best guesses know that. Still the idea that they are all completely wrong and this GP is right is just silly.

Neither case/infection case fatality rates for covid are 0.1% for all-age population.
The true all-age IFR is fairly close to 1%.

www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.03.20089854v4
www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.09.20096503v3
www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.06.20093351v2

Ferguson & Fauci are enormously respected by other epidemiologists. They aren't superhuman, not every idea they have is amazing or best method, but they are both very expert & able.

Fergusens models aren't respected and are treated with contempt by a lot of his peers, I don't understand how people still respect opinions of a man so discredited and wrong not once but nearly every time.

Three pieces of evidence that indicate that Ferguson and Fauci, and many others, weren’t wrong... even if Ferguson’s models had flaws.

Exhibit 1 Covid deaths as per most ONS figures to the end of June (where Covid is deemed to be primary cause of death) is c.46,000

www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsinvolvingcovid19englandandwales/deathsoccurringinjune2020

Exhibit 2 Proportion of people with antibodies as per latest national study: 6%.

www.gov.uk/government/publications/react-2-study-of-coronavirus-antibodies-june-2020-results/react-2-real-time-assessment-of-community-transmission-prevalence-of-coronavirus-covid-19-antibodies-in-june-2020

Exhibit 3 Antibodies levels of 60% and above have been found in various hotspots, indicating that whereas some people may have been infected and don’t have antibodies, the majority do.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/world-asia-india-53576653

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/07/09/nyregion/nyc-coronavirus-antibodies.amp.html

www.time24story.com/2020/07/covid-19-may-have-infected-93-of-iquitos-in-peru-according-to-a-study.html

Conclusion A reasonable deduction is that circa 10 times more people, perhaps more, would need to be infected before we reach herd immunity nationally.

Extrapolating the deaths accordingly, and we’d have 460,000 deaths... not far off Ferguson’s figure!

And yes, I do accept that Ferguson’s model had major flaws.... However, the figures have stood the test of time.

Apparently according to Dr Kendrick: “Stop panicking – it’s over”.

Yes, good call....

www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/spain-over-920-covid-19-patients-hospitalized-in-a-day/1954262#

Do remember that he was modelling the 'reasonable worst case' scenario.

It's to inform planning.

It is a mark of the success of the response that we did not even come close. Any outcome which matched a reasonable worst case is either an utter failure, or the result of a government thinking that the scenario is acceptabke and choosing to do nothing

The March 'reasonable worst case' scenario is now published online.

Here's the BBC report on the new one for the winter

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53954492

We've known Ferguson was talking shit for months.

Hos model didn't stand up to the slightest bit of scrutiny.

We've known Ferguson was talking shit for months.

It's strange people are eager to defend him but villify Cummings. When all fergussen was interested in was a shag

His model didn't stand up to the slightest bit of scrutiny.

His model has various flaws, some big ones, though much of that wasn’t so obvious in early March. He was also a hypocrite.

However, the numbers churned out by the model are, perhaps by luck, consistent with our current figures, so I find it curious that his 500,000 keeps getting dragged up again and again.

Was surveillance of asymptomatic people done in previous influenza epidemics? Was the methodology similar to what we had with corona? At a similar point in epidemic ?(there may be some selection pressures - late in the epidemic perhaps viruses which replicate more may tend to be ones which cause less severe symptoms and the host population may on average be less likely to succumb).

Even different influenza epidemics differ from each other in their time-course and lethality.

In the face of uncertainty, Is it better to be cautious like countries in Asia/oceania (Some with higher population density and lower mortality rate than Europe)? Personally I would say yes.