Kung-Flu Panda: Dodgy analytics or pandemic propaganda?

Joined
Mar 6, 2004
Messages
33,989
In the interests of balance, why don't they do an investigation on the far worse modelling done by the SA Modelling Consortium and the one which pushed us into level 5 lockdown because SA was definitely, 100% going to replicate the experience in Bergamo, Italy.

What also warrants further investigation is the close relationship between government bodies such as the Medical Research Council and the government -- was pressure applied to the MRC to present the worse possible outcome?
 

JohnStarr

Expert Member
Joined
May 21, 2018
Messages
3,808
I read this article, but didn't want to deal with the backlash of posting a thread about it. It was very clear from the beginning that their agenda was political not scientific...



Pretty much half of the forum have fallen into at least one of the many fallacies.
...if not all. Science FTW on this one, not dodgy Google couch doctors, antivaxxers & conspiracy theorists.
 

SlinkyMike

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
7,509
We have quite a few panda devotees right here.

I read this article, but didn't want to deal with the backlash of posting a thread about it. It was very clear from the beginning that their agenda was political not scientific...



Pretty much half of the forum have fallen into at least one of the many fallacies.

South African society is largely made up of people who have internalised racist and mysogynist views. Talking about k-words by the braai or hearing "one boer, one bullet" chanted by leaders has an impact on young minds.

Those kids are all grown up and of voting age now.

Politicians who have harnessed this part of the population (globally) fall on the conservative end of the spectrum and tend to use outsider political strategies. Part of the outsider strategy is the painting of the outsider as a lone bastion of critical/free thought in a world gone mad. How else can one person be right while literally all others are wrong? How can a glorified armchair pundit be right and the entirety of the global scientific community be wrong/corrupt?

This is the reason we have so many covidiots in SA and particularly on this forum. These folks are programmed to respond to contrarian views as they despise a progressive society that they feel has left them behind.

Same for climate change denial. Same for LGBTQI+ rights. Same for socialised health care, minimum wage, etc, etc.
 

SlinkyMike

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
7,509
Your team said the bodies would line the streets. Their team said the bodies would line the streets

Reality - No bodies are lining the streets :whistling:
Yes, they said those thing would happen if we did not lock down, we locked down and they did not happen. How exactly does your pip work if you cannot grok that?

"This ABS is nonsense, we never crash when it's on." :rolleyes:
 

pinball wizard

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
23,891
Your team said the bodies would line the streets. Their team said the bodies would line the streets

Reality - No bodies are lining the streets :whistling:
Precisely. The so called experts on all 27 sides of the argument are wrong, and lying to cover up their false assertions.
 
Joined
Mar 6, 2004
Messages
33,989
Yes, they said those thing would happen if we did not lock down, we locked down and they did not happen. How exactly does your pip work if you cannot grok that?

"This ABS is nonsense, we never crash when it's on." :rolleyes:

Ah, so a situation of "heads we win, tails you lose" scenario.... how convenient.

You know what put beyond reasonable doubt that epidemiological modelling is not much more than lurching around in the dark?


Indeed, Ferguson’s Imperial College model has been proven wildly inaccurate. To cite just one example, it saw Sweden paying a huge price for no lockdown, with 40,000 COVID deaths by May 1, and 100,000 by June. Sweden now has 2,854 deaths and peaked two weeks ago. As Fraser Nelson, editor of Britain’s Spectator, notes: “Imperial College’s model is wrong by an order of magnitude.”

Continuing "trusting the science" (whatever the hell that means -- basically knowledge of science will tell you "the science" is often highly contested)
 

SlinkyMike

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
7,509
Ah, so a situation of "heads we win, tails you lose" scenario.... how convenient.
Precautions or not precautions. We saw how it went in the early days for the UK. It's pretty clear that conservative leaders did you guys dirty in the beginning of this.

You know what put beyond reasonable doubt that epidemiological modelling is not much more than lurching around in the dark?
NO one does. The closest corollary we have is the 1918 Pandemic. I was involved in some modeling with certain government organisations in the early part of 2020 and I can tell you that what you are expressing is a widely held opinion among the experts doing the actual modeling. I don't know how it helps you to perpetuate the lie that this is a failure of liberal scientists and leaders apart from trying to perpetuate the politicisation of the pandemic which has clearly had tragic effects the world over.




Continuing "trusting the science" (whatever the hell that means
What is the better option than trusting science insofar as we are able to understand the data?

-- basically knowledge of science will tell you "the science" is often highly contested)
Again: painting this as a failing of science is conservative propaganda... this is how science works. If you don't like that then reject your precious industrialised capitalist society and return to monke. Everything you know as modern life is a product of science.
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
19,403
leaders apart from trying to perpetuate the politicisation of the pandemic which has clearly had tragic effects the world over.
This is the real tragedy, and, the ultimate reason why health systems failed all over the place.
 

SlinkyMike

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
7,509
I am hesitant to trust any source on mostly anything. You need to back up your view, there is always a credibility test, however, sources cannot go ignored otherwise you will never learn anything.

Panda is well-loved and adored, I see many social media pundits backing them, and many have used Panda to support their own arguments.

As always, I am not a very trusting person, generally I don't trust anyone. Burned my hands more than once.
What you have described is skepticism and it is the very reason that science exists in the first place.

I really wish schools would actually educate people on the scientific method in abstract.

You don't need to trust people on social media. The scientific method is as infallible as what we have been able to devise. Are people involved in applying the method? Yes and they have been caught in the midst of shenanigans but for science across the planet to be corrupt is vanishingly tiny odds. Ironically it it science-deniers that have been caught cherry picking data and cheating the method, mainly for profit, the Grandfather of the antivaxx movement ex-doctor Andrew Wakefield is one.
 

flippakitten

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2015
Messages
2,438
There will never be a time when PANDA is/was correct. Even the bodies lining the streets is more accurate than their predictions.

I'll say it again, their data is probably really good, their analysis is deeply flawed as they simply don't have a balanced team.
 

SlinkyMike

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
7,509
There will never be a time when PANDA is/was correct. Even the bodies lining the streets is more accurate than their predictions.

I'll say it again, their data is probably really good, their analysis is deeply flawed as they simply don't have a balanced team.
Their data is as good as anyone else's. Their analysis suffers from bias.
 

Nick Hudson

New Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2021
Messages
1

rustypup

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2016
Messages
2,408
Even the bodies lining the streets is more accurate than their predictions
Guessing you have less than nothing to back this statement up other than your flaky feels.

Pro-tip: Your feelings mean jack shiat.
 

flippakitten

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2015
Messages
2,438
Guessing you have less than nothing to back this statement up other than your flaky feels.

Pro-tip: Your feelings mean jack shiat.

Did you fail reading:
Two top British experts have now told DM168 that Panda’s actuarial model is deeply flawed. “This paper is unfortunately a complete sham masquerading as science – it would never pass peer review in any reputable journal,” said Dr Deepti Gurdasani, a clinical epidemiologist and statistical geneticist at Queen Mary University in London.
 

flippakitten

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2015
Messages
2,438
Top