Government's COVID-19 forecasts are totally flawed and we should move to lockdown level 1 now – Scientists

Hanno Labuschagne

MyBroadband
Staff member
Super Moderator
Joined
Sep 2, 2019
Messages
1,779
Government's COVID-19 forecasts are totally flawed and we should move to lockdown level 1 now – Scientists

Pandemics, Data, and Analytics (PANDA) coordinators said there has been a breathtaking failure by COVID-19 modellers whose coronavirus death predictions for South Africa amounted to scaremongering.

Speaking to Biznews, PANDA co-ordinator Nick Hudson said the official modelling of South Africa’s projected mortalities from COVID-19 started at 375,000.

Hudson said this extremely high mortality figure “scared the living daylights” out of President Cyril Ramaphosa.
 

WalkWithMe

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2016
Messages
296
Did anyone listen to CR? He said he wanted Level 1 but WHO advised against it.
Anyway you always going to get an expert saying something different.
 

quovadis

Executive Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2004
Messages
5,388
Hindsight is wonderful for those who work with data. It's called a forecast because it's based on data available at the time and extrapolated based on various factors. It's logical that forecasts prior to lockdown would differ to forecasts during and as the data becomes available thus the reduction of forecasts over time. The measures in place by government (whether questionable or not) cannot be excluded as a contribution to the forecast revisions.
 

HartsockZA

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2015
Messages
638
The government says no. You must put the lotion on and do what its told
 

km2

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2007
Messages
1,209
This has not been observed anywhere in the world. Normally the exponentiating phase, if there really is one at all, is very short and then the growth rate of cases starts dropping off

Isn't that more due to countries that see the exponential phase ramping up ordering a lock down and then the growth rate drops.

He said every population in the world has many people who are simply resistant to COVID-19. “That is a robust finding. You will not find a single data point which refutes it.”

When he says "resistant" is this people who just won't get it, or people who become asymptomatic carriers that is even worse?
 

Johand

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
1,577
Well this is a good argument for open models.

I would also so that the Achilles heel of all the models is data. Using American, European and Chinese data for modelling is also not validated.

And BTW assuming the US, European and Chinese data is accurate might also be a mistake. There is a lot of work being done trying to reconcile current mortality figures (all causes) to historical data. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/05/05/us/coronavirus-death-toll-us.html

Short thing is ... we simply do not know. Combination of informal settlements, HIV, nutrition etc might give us a different result. Or it might not. Anybody that pretends that they know the actual answers are lying or deceiving themselves.

I am also worried about this "PANDA" organization. Who funds them? Who are they? Are their work peer-reviewed? I have been to their website and frankly it reminds me of the American "scientific" lobbying groups against climate change action. Lots of formal looking information but little information about funding, people involved, history etc.
 

Johand

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
1,577
Also Nick Hudson from PANDA is a partner in a private equity firm. Hardly neutral.

Modelling is good, but the media should not report as if PANDA is some independent academic outfit. They are not independent, and they want to achieve specific outcomes. They are a lobbying group.
 

moosag

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2004
Messages
1,183
If they make it public it will expose their lack of Excel experience ...
 

quovadis

Executive Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2004
Messages
5,388
Also Nick Hudson from PANDA is a partner in a private equity firm. Hardly neutral.

Modelling is good, but the media should not report as if PANDA is some independent academic outfit. They are not independent, and they want to achieve specific outcomes. They are a lobbying group.

Is there a publicly available and open model from PANDA on which they base their own forecasts/opinions?
 

garp

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2004
Messages
8,798
"He added that the model used to predict the number of infections and mortalities in South Africa has not been made public, which is deeply problematic."

This fact alone, regardless of what the models forecast, or differing opinions, underlines that the lockdown is inconsistent with the constitution, section 36 of which states:

"The rights in the Bill of Rights may be limited only in terms of law of general application to the extent that the limitation is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom, taking into account all relevant factors..."

The basis of the decisions are not open. This is yet another way in which the regulations are not constitutional.
 

Shadowchaser1

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2018
Messages
352
Assumption is the MOTHER OF F*****S. The WHO is utterly useless. They did absolutely nothing since the start of COVID19. The SA Gov is useless. Their models prove nothing. Bring hard proof, I think they get their info from weird fantasy comic books. Glad I left the P***P**r country. You are an embarressment to yourself.
 
Top