Sorry the modelling here does not refer to the kind that involves fashion models, but the more mundane type used by scientists to make future predictions.

I am sure it has not escaped your notice that all kind of forecasts are being made with abandon about Covid-19 reminiscent of the prophesies of yesteryear. It is also interesting that the prophets making these forecasts are not deterred by the minor inconvenience of repeatedly being wrong. If anything, it seems to spur them onto making the next wrong forecast with increased vigour and gusto.

Before going into details let us consider the examples of two agencies which might have been mainly responsible for influencing the world response to Covid-10 pandemic,

UK Imperial College –  Their report projected 7 billion infections and 20 million global Covid-19 related deaths despite preventive measures having been taken (Link: Imperial College Report). This painted a horrific picture of hospitals overwhelmed and infected people dying in the corridors.  Fortunately, the emerging data suggests a much lower rate of fatality projected by Imperial College simulation. .

US Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) – Also projected similarly high levels of mortality and hospital bed requirements.  The governments prepared for the worst case scenarios projected by IHME estimates which are again fortunately proving unnecessary with existing medical facilities satisfactorily dealing with the problem  As an example, in a week IHME reduced their 2 April 2020 forecast of 92,000 deaths to 60,000 on 8 April 2020 (Links: IHME & CNN)

Catastrophic bias is a consistent trend with almost all such forecasts in all areas of  human endeavour.  Here are some examples

1. Global food shortages
2. Depletion of Fossil fuel
3. Onset of ice age
4. Millennium bug disaster
5. Brexit & Trump Election Results
6. Stock market crashes
7. And yes, almost all the climate change predictions made by Al Gore in his movie An Inconvenient Truth.

Unsurprisingly, all the above predictions were also touted as scientific and data driven.  However, when proved wrong the people responsible came up again with some scientific and data driven explanations about how it was not they who were wrong.  On the other hand, they also claimed that their warnings prevented the catastrophe or delayed the inevitable.

You will have to search very long and hard to find one long term forecast made by science which turned out to be true.  Thank God! But that doesn’t stop scientists, with their cloak of invulnerability, from making their next wrong forecast!

The following story aptly illustrates the prediction game:

A tourist in a small Yorkshire village saw a old villager walking up and down the street with a huge elephant gun.
When asked the villager replied that he was doing that to keep the wild elephants away.
The surprised tourist said “But there are no wild elephant in these parts “.
The villager triumphantly retorted “Don’t you see that it is the fear of the gun keeping them away “!!!!

 

This forecasting business is as old a con as civilisation itself and used to be known as prophesies – The end of the world is neigh. Repent!

It surely must meet some primitive psychological need for humans to believe in the end of the world narrative.  How else can you explain the irrational hypnotic power it holds to deceive and persuade.

Statistical Modelling

So, what do the scientists and experts base their prophetic pronouncements on?  It is Statistical Modelling which underpins almost all modern day projections and predictions.

Firstly, it is important to understand that Statistical Modelling is not science, but a process which combines statistical and scientific data, liberally sprinkled with beliefs, speculations and estimates, to project outcomes. The estimates, both unknowns and unknowable, in these models are called variables which are the key to the accuracy of any model.

Einstein’s biggest blunder

 

To understand Variables, let us turn to one of its most famous example which Einstein called his biggest blunder.

The story goes something like this:  When proposing his General Theory of Relativity, Einstein  introduced a Cosmological Constant (Represented by the Greek capital letter lambda: Λ ) purely for the purpose of allowing his theory to fit in with the commonly held belief of a static universe .   This constant was supposed to counteract the gravitational attraction between matter in the universe  to prevent it from collapsing into a singularity.

At the time Einstein had no idea of what this constant was and gave it the value required for validating his theory. The Cosmological Constant was the variable in his model.

Now here is the rub, the value of this variable has continually changed since the time of Einstein, adjusting to whatever the current theories of universe require.  Scientists unhesitatingly ascribe any value they want to validate their theory be it that of a static, expanding, or accelerating universe, multiverse or one which incorporates dark energy and matter.

You will rarely find scientists acknowledge this sleight of hand instead of which they will strenuously try and persuade you about their revised reasoning being equally scientific. The irony of the changing values of the constant and their reasoning is totally lost on them.

Covid-19 Modelling & Variables

The above relatively simple example only involves one variable whereas far more complex models like that Covid-19 involve a huge number of variables some unknown and others unknowable.

Here are some of the unknown and unknowable variables without which it is almost impossible to make any reliable predictions about Covid-19.

1. The rate of spread of the infection. The Wuhan model suggests a rate of 2.5 person per infected person whereas some recent studies suggest a possible rate of up to 5
2. Total number of people infected. This is almost impossible considering a large number of people might get infected and recover without showing any symptoms.
3. Number of deaths directly attributable to Covid-19. What is the overlap between what would have been a death due to some underlying conditions or flue and Covid-19 infection?
4. Details of all the means by which it spreads.
5. Possibility of reinfection?
6. Individual factors which make people more or less susceptible to serious infection
7. Why are Europe and USA harder hit than Asia and Africa?
8. Why does it affect males more than females?
9. Why is there a race differential in the mortality rate?
10. Are smokers less likely to catch Covid-19 infection?

To overcome the challenge of unknown variables the modellers estimate and speculate possible values for the variables.  Changing any one of them can produce results ranging from rational to irrational with no way of knowing the difference.  And this is where human bias plays a role allowing scientists to select one value over another.  And unsurprisingly this always tends to be biased towards extremes!

It is useful to remember that local weather forecasts are also based on similar  models which turn out to be right most of the time because most of the variables in weather models are known to a fair degree of certainty.  On the other hand, climate models have numerous variables a lot of which are unknowable making it highly subjective and speculative. You can be told whatever you want to hear or something which cannot be validated for 10, 20 or a 100 years!  Year from now who is going to remember, or even bother, if you were wrong?

Paraphrasing Archimedes- Give me any model and I will produce the outcomes you want by tweaking its variables.  The more complex the model the more freedom I have to turn the forecasts into something akin to astrology.

In the business world this practice is called “creative accounting”.  It is frowned upon and considered unethical bordering on fraudulent.  However, their cloak of respectability allows scientists to avoid any such charge with a fully compliant media and gullible public repeatedly falling for their ‘creative accounting‘.

Failure of Professional Experts

Agencies like WHO and CDC were charged with one and only one principle task – preparation for, and prevention of pandemics.  They exist for protecting us from just such threats which were forecast at least 40 year ago.  They all failed and miserably!  And now the same people, with little humility, are opining loudly and confidently on everything including areas outside their expertise.

Let us take the example of Dr Anthony Fauci, an US expert on infectious diseases, who has become a media star since the outbreak of the pandemic and makes daily pronouncements on Covid-19.  It is an important example because what America does also influences the rest of the world.

It might be worth remembering that despite his confident manner Dr Fauci is as likely to be as right or wrong as any other expert (Link: YouTube Today,  YouTube Timeline).  He doesn’t cover himself with glory with his actions since 31 December 2019 when the virus was first reported.  Did he check the veracity of the information provided by the Chinese authorities or did he accept it at face value? Did he consider the global implications of likely Chinese coverup?  Does he believe in the low infection figures and fatalities being reported by China?  Does he understand the full implications of an economic shutdown?  How come we never hear him comment on any of these fundamental issues?  Could it be because they might expose his ignorance and indifference?

There are many other qualified experts with a different point of view, some with perhaps a better Covid-19 track record.   Just because Dr Fauci has the loudest megaphone does not necessarily make him right!

In this war the role of experts should be confined to their area of expertise only.  They should not be allowed to make decisions which impact our economy, employment, education, law and order, social fabric etc.  However well-meaning their ignorance , it will certainly lead us astray.

We should remember that a well-meaning but ill-informed friend is far more dangerous than an intelligent enemy.  The influence of experts and pundits should be carefully and strenuously limited to the area of their expertise.

Why would anybody exaggerate the projections?

1. It benefits the experts if their projections are catastrophic. Who would  pay attention if a report projected normalcy or minor variations?  But exaggerate it and see how much attention, generally accompanied by power, influence and wealth, flows in your direction.
2. Media attracts a bigger audience, which help their financial bottom line. This is obvious when you note that one person killed in an accident gets a 1,000% more news coverage than 1,000 people saved!
3. Finally, nobody pays a price for wrong forecasts and errors are invariably explained away with little regard to the financial, social, and psychological price the citizens end up paying.

How do you minimise the risks of exaggeration?

1. Media should play the role of an honest broker and not accept anything as absolute remembering that there are no absolutes in nature and none in science.  This is their main job.  They should not see such issues through the filter of their ideology.
2. Reject and ignore any media outlet or expert opinion which oversteps it knowledge and expertise.  Consequences and accountability for misleading bias, misinformation, and wrong advice will keep them honest.  If we do not, they will keep pushing their agenda, and propaganda, at our costs.
3. We should demand and hear both sides of any argument to make sure that vested interests do not exploit any crisis to their advantage.  We must remember what Rahm Emanuel, President Obama’s adviser famously said about “never letting a crisis go to waste “.  And politicians do that as do businesses, power brokers and media.  It is in their DNA.
4. Hold people at the top accountable.  No excuses or mitigating circumstances allowed at the top.  If you as the intelligence chief could not prevent 9/11 attack you get the sack. No ifs and buts!  Leadership is about responsibility, not blame.  It will be a revelation as to how strongly it will focus the minds of people in authority instead of their normal preoccupation with power and wealth.
5. When unsure take the middle path.  No point destroying your society and economy over a threat which wasn’t as severe as predicted by the experts.  They will get away by saying “Oops!” whereas we, and perhaps future generations, will be paying the price for their folly for a very long time.

We know sunshine is the best disinfectant.  Virtue signalling and good intentions which pervade the current social thinking might make us feel good but will never be a substitute for jobs, food on the table or deterrent for the criminals when, and if, we face an economic disaster or social breakdown.  History tells  us that civilisations which took hundreds of years to build and consolidate can fall apart very quickly.  Let us not be lulled into a false sense of security when chaos is marshalling its troops at the gate!

Not being vigilant consigns us to ending up like the hapless spectators in the final scene in George Orwell’s iconic book Animal Farm or the scenario painted in Ayn Rand’s book Atlas Shrugged where the world comes to stop for exactly this kind of complicity between rich, powerful and the media.