-
If they were both anywhere near correct then, by now, we would have over 125,000 people either dead, or about to die.
That’s not how modelling works.
miro_o-
Its how maths works, if you can show me using maths how those 2 statements can both be true, go for it. but my issue isn't that. My issue is that there is very little data yet on this virus in the grand scheme of things, so little that the models emerging are indicative at best, and certainly not definitive.
All of this research/analysis is being fed into government, and they are having to make the hardest decisions of their lives, while knowing that the foundations they are working on make quicksand look like granite. At the same time they have to stand in front of cameras every day and show no weakness whatsoever because bad as things are now, this plus major public panic is a hell of a lot worse.
To have major academics then throwing early contradictory versions of their sketchy at best analysis into the public domain, and using it to push their own agendas stinks, whatever the motivation.
And what is the motivation? Get our university on the map world wide? Get my name in the paper, and face on TV starting a successful media career when the smoke clears? It could even be the highly laudable “Get the government to follow my course of action because I’m 100% sure I’m right, and the scientific advice they are following is dangerously wrong”. The reality of the last reason is of course that whatever the government do there will always be top academics who think that way.
You say that’s not how modelling works, I’d say this doesn’t strike me as the way publication of serious scientific research works either.
Sifta
Its bugging me that these "respectable" institutions are falling over themselves to publish research in its infancy, and the news media is then running with it. Seems to me that a load of academics are seeing the chance to make a name for themselves, and grasping at it.
Imperial say "If left unfettered then 250,000 people could die"
Oxford say "It has been left unfettered and 50%+ have already had it"
If they were both anywhere near correct then, by now, we would have over 125,000 people either dead, or about to die. (Actually more, since the 250K equates to how many will have died once herd immunity kicks in, not 100% of the population getting it). That hasn't happened, so either one or both of these bits of research are spectacularly wrong.
No, but I bet they are praying that Oxford are correct, that's one of the main reasons that they are touting the antibody test as a game changer. and one where they are 100% right to not start shipping the test until they are 100% sure its accurate.
It should also be noted that they seem to be behaving as if Imperial is correct, which is erring on the side of caution. It also seems that they might have managed to ramp up capacity to somewhere near giving the NHS a chance to cope.